Environmental Justice of Open

Space Amenities in Baltimore, Maryland

Christopher BooneSchool of Human Evolution and Social ChangeGlobal Institute of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityJ. Morgan GroveUSDA Forest ServiceNortheastern Research Station (Vermont)

Research Question

Who has access to parks and open space in Baltimore, and who uses them?

http://www.audubonmddc.org/patterson_park_programs.htm

Who?

Groups Neighborhoods Census Tracts Neighborhood Statistical Areas (Baltimore

Neighborhood Indicators Alliance)

Equity

Access plus area Acres per person

– Contained by neighborhood– Accessible by neighborhood

Who has access?

Neighborhoods are treated as homogenous in extent

Dasymetric mapping to improve resolution

Populations and Access to Parks

Within ¼ mile of park

Beyond ¼ mile of park

Blacks/African Am.

332,430 84,982

Whites 135,736 68,245

Families in Poverty

22,301 5,530

Total pop 487,631 159,764

Access:no access

Blacks/African Americans 3.91

Whites 1.99

Families in Poverty 4.03

Total Population 3.05

Demographics and Park Area

Acres/1000 pop within ¼ mile of neighborhoods– Predominantly black neighborhoods: 13.01– Predominantly white neighborhoods: 24.72

Who uses the parks?

City (Parks & Rec) has not collected usage statistics

BES telephone survey:– 1,508 households in Baltimore Metro

Area– 383 households in Baltimore City

Survey says….

Activity Yes No Park ElsewhereTake a walk or exercise 81.72 18.28 35.02 64.98Biking or outdoor sports 53.26 46.74 66.88 33.13Picnic/bbq/camping 72.32 27.68 29.78 70.22Drive for pleasure 65.27 34.46 10.64 89.36Swimming 54.31 45.69 5.81 94.19Canoe/kayaking/sailing 16.45 83.55 9.80 90.20Motor boat/fishing 24.28 75.72 10.39 89.61

37%37% of all activities occurred in parks or recreation areas

Lifestyle and Recreation

Little difference in recreation patterns between three major PRIZM clusters: Urban Uptowns, Urban Midscale, Urban Cores

Blacks Whites Less than HS HS Grad College Grad <$50KUrban Uptowns 25 64 3 16 32 32Urban Midscale 48 43 13 24 16 41Urban Cores 68 26 21 32 20 68

General demographics of PRIZM clusters

Lifestyle and Park Use

Parks or recreation areas were used for 1/3rd of the top recreation activities (walking; cycling/outdoor sports; picnic/bbq/camping; driving)

“Urban cores” more likely to use parks for recreation than urban uptowns

ALL ACTIVITIESn % n % n % n %

Park 74 28.35 81 32.79 116 46.03 317 32.88Elsewhere 187 71.65 166 67.21 136 53.97 647 67.12

Urban Uptowns Urban Midscale Urban Cores All Groups

Lifestyle and Park Use

“Urban Cores” who are predominantly black, lower income, and with less educational attainment more likely to use parks for

recreational activities

Does access to parks make a difference in use?

287 respondents live within ¼ mile 96 respondents live beyond ¼ mile

Proximity makes some difference

Within 1/4 mile of park Beyond 1/4 mile of parkTalk a walk or exercise 3.17 5.11Biking or outdoor sports 1.09 1.16Picnic/bbq/camping 3.17 2.46Drive for pleasure 1.50 2.05

Walk where 0.68 0.50Bike/outdoor sports where 1.64 2.15Picnic/bbq/camping where 0.33 0.46Pleasure drive where 0.20 0.10

Ratio of yes to no for major recreation activities

Ratio of park to elsewhere; where people recreate

Proximity does not make a difference to perception of availability and quality

Respondents asked about the availability and quality of parks and open space (no problem, somewhat of a problem, major problem) in their neighborhood

Little difference between those that lived within ¼ mile and those that live beyond ¼ mile of parks

Lifestyle cluster makes a difference to perceptions of park availability and quality

Availability of Parks and Open Spaces

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Urban Uptowns Urban Midscale Urban Cores

Not a problem

Somewhat of a problem

Major problem

Lifestyle cluster makes a difference to perceptions of park quality

Quality of parks and open spaces

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Urban Uptowns Urban Midscale Urban Cores

Per

cen

t

Not

a p

robl

em

Som

ewha

t

Maj

or

Conclusions

1. Baltimore is mid-range in park acreage per thousand population

2. ¼ mile buffer covers 61% of area and 75% of population

3. Access ratio for blacks higher than for whites4. Parks used mainly for biking5. Little difference in recreation patterns between

major PRIZM groups6. Perception of availability and quality differs by

PRIZM group, not by proximity to parks

Limitations

“Global” patterns All parks are equal Responses vs. actual use