A longitudinal analysisof park equity in Baltimore, MD

1970-2000

Global Institute of Sustainability

Chona SisterChristopher Boone

Baltimore City, 1880-2000

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Popu

latio

n

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

# jo

bs

Population Manufacturing Jobs

• African-American and high need populations have better walking access to parks, but have access to lower per-capita acres of parks than others

• Current patterns are in spite of a long history of neglecting recreational needs of African-Americans

Park EquityPark Equity

Los Angeles Wolch et al. Latinos and low-income households have better access, but access to less acreage per capita than whites and high-income households

Ramla and Lod (Israel)

Omer and Ur Arabs have access to less acreage per capita than Jews

Phoenix Cutts et al. Latinos, less-educated, and lower-income households have better access, but access to less acreage per capita than white, wealthy, well-educated neighborhoods

Portland Talen Needs index

HypothesesHypotheses

• Blacks “inherited” much of Baltimore’s space and services from a combination of historic processes

• Black neighborhoods grew into formerly white communities better served with parks

Distributive

Outcome equality

Distribution of environmental disamenities

(and amenities)

Participative

Process equality

Fairness in decision-making,application of law,

and institutions

Environmental JusticeEnvironmental Justice

Just distributions justly achieved

Comparing present day with historic Comparing present day with historic patterns: 3 methodspatterns: 3 methods

• Quarter-mile access to parks- Provides a comparison of who have pedestrian access

and who do not

• Needs-based index- Addresses equity issue; targeting a public good to groups

in most need

• Potential park congestion- Measures distributional equity without the constraints of a

pre-defined service area

• 2000 vs. 1970

2000 = 7.9 park acres per 1,000 people1970 = 5.3 park acres per 1,000 people

1970 2000

Within¼-mi buffer

Beyond¼-mile buffer

Within¼-mi buffer

Beyond¼-mile buffer

Population 75% 25% 74% 26%

Af-Am 80% 20% 76% 24%

White 73% 27% 70% 30%

Poverty 15% 12% 26% 21%

Quarter-mile pedestrian accessQuarter-mile pedestrian access

Quarter mile accessQuarter mile access

perc

enta

ge

1970(acres/1000 pop)

2000(acres/1000 pop)

White Black White Black25-50 2.45 24.51 8.89 24.2150-75 25.64 2.06 25.34 12.24>75 28.72 17.69 16.79 33.42

Acr

es p

er 1

K p

op

Park acres per Park acres per 1K pop across 1K pop across race groupsrace groups

NeedClass

Mean distance to park

Maximumdistance

Stddeviation

Accessibleacres per 1K pop

1970 2000 1970 2000 1970 2000 1970 2000

Low 328 311 846 868 230 243 46.9 31.25

Med 304 284 1,277 1,271 231 240 22.7 32.89

High 283 214 1,486 1,272 289 248 5.9 12.38

Needs-based indexNeeds-based index

Needs-based Index:Needs-based Index:Accessible acres per 1,000 popAccessible acres per 1,000 pop

Acr

es p

er 1

K p

op

Needs-based indexNeeds-based index

1970

2000

Potential park Potential park congestioncongestion

LegendMajority Whitepers per pk acre

0-200>200 - 500>500 - 1000>1000 - 2000>2000 - 10000>1000

Majority Blackpers per pk acre

0 - 200>200 - 500>500 - 1000>1000 - 2000>2000 - 10000>10000

Potential park congestionPotential park congestion

LegendMajority Whitepers per pk acre

0-200>200 - 500>500 - 1000>1000 - 2000>2000 - 10000>1000

Majority Blackpers per pk acre

0 - 200>200 - 500>500 - 1000>1000 - 2000>2000 - 10000>10000

SummarySummary

• Despite loss of 270,000 people, not significant differences in the equity of park distribution between 1970 and 2000.

• For both 1970 and 2000, African-American and high need populations have better walking access to parks, but have access to lower per-capita acres of parks than others