A regional park equity analysis revealed disparities in park access and specific features related to park qualityCommunity parks offer an array of public health, environmental, and social benefits. However, disparities regarding park access and quality may limit park use and health outcomes in disadvantaged communities. This study contributes to the growing body of research examining potential inequities in park availability and quality in relation to neighborhood sociodemographic factors.
The research was conducted in an urban region of South Carolina, U.S. Census tract data was used to define a study area, which included a population of 315,639 people and 77 parks. The study area included a higher percentage of residents below the poverty line (19.7%) than the state average (13.8%) and exhibited racial and sociodemographic diversity. ArcGIS was used to identify 241 block groups and American Community Survey data provided racial/ethnic and sociodemographic information. Sociodemographic characteristics determined at the neighborhood level included: 1) percent of residents who were unemployed, 2) percent of residents with less than high school education, 3) percentage of renter-occupied housing, and 4) percent of residents under 125% of the federal poverty threshold. Park availability was measured by the number of parks per block group and by the number of acres of park space. The Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT) was utilized to assess multiple factors related to park quality. These factors included: 1) park transportation access, 2) availability of recreational facilities, 3) quality of recreational facilities, 4) availability of amenities, 5) park aesthetics, 6) park quality concerns, and 7) neighborhood quality concerns. Parks were numerically scored for each item separately and a total park quality score was also calculated. Analysis examined differences in sociodemographic indicators in relation to park availability and quality.
Within the 241 residential block groups analyzed, a range of 0 to 4 parks were identified per block group. On average, residential block groups contained 0.41 parks. Block groups with higher percentages of residents below 125% of the poverty level were found to have statistically significant greater park availability, indicating that higher poverty areas had more parks. Park size did not differ in relation to sociodemographic characteristics. The availability or quality of park facilities also did not differ in relation to sociodemographic characteristics. Park transportation access scores were significantly higher among neighborhoods with higher percentages of residents with less than a high school education, and also within neighborhoods with higher percentages of residents identifying as non-Hispanic white. Block groups with higher percentages of unemployed residents were determined to have significantly lower availability of park amenities, such as restrooms, drinking fountains, lights, and picnic tables within their parks. Additionally, block groups with greater percentages of residents with less than a high school education had significantly lower scores for aesthetically pleasing features, such as landscaping, artistic or educational features, and wooded areas. Significant relationships were not detected between block group characteristics and park quality concerns, neighborhood quality concerns, or overall park quality.
While the research documented greater park availability within high poverty areas within its specific study area, disparities were detected in park amenity availability and park aesthetics. Further, inequities in park accessibility were also revealed, with non-Hispanic white residents having greater park transportation access. Overall, the study demonstrates a valuable approach for identifying the relationships between sociodemographic factors and park availability and quality, which can inform “targeted interventions to promote equitable access to health-promoting parks and improve community well-being.” Findings also “highlight the need for more nuanced research on sociodemographic factors, park availability, and park quality.”
The Bottom Line