Paragraphs Environmental Design

Parkland Provision and Walking Access in Selected U.S. Cities: A Comparative Assessment

Original Research · Environmental Design · 2025, Volume 3, Issue 3: 21–39

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.24160588

Michael Benedikt*

Professor of Architecture, University of Texas at Austin

*Correspondence: mbenedikt@utexas.edu

Received: June 2025 | Accepted: August 2025 | Published: September 2025

View / Download PDF

Abstract

Urban park assessments frequently treat the amount of parkland and the proximity of parks as interchangeable indicators of adequate provision. This article examines their relationship through a comparative secondary analysis of Washington, DC, Minneapolis, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Phoenix. It uses the archived 2024 ParkScore data and scholarship published before December 1, 2024. The analysis distinguishes land allocation, population coverage, neighborhood park space, and the conditions that make access usable. Across the selected cities, parkland shares range from 10.2% to 23.8%, whereas reported ten-minute walking coverage ranges from 49% to 100%. The most instructive contrast is between Minneapolis and Phoenix: their land shares differ by only 0.5 percentage points, but walking coverage differs by 50 points. The results also identify substantial neighborhood park-space disparities in several cities with almost universal proximity. These comparisons do not isolate the effects of density, investment, climate, or governance; they demonstrate that aggregate acreage and proximity measure different achievements. The article develops a framework for interpreting those achievements together, while retaining quality, capacity, inclusive mobility, and residential stability as separate questions. It proposes targeted acquisition where residential coverage is missing, improvements to routes where parks are physically disconnected, and attention to capacity and usability where proximity is already extensive. A defensible assessment therefore evaluates whether people can reach, use, and continue to benefit from suitable parks, rather than allowing success on one indicator to substitute for evidence on the others.

Keywords: urban parks; walking accessibility; park provision; environmental justice; ParkScore; comparative urban planning

Citation

Benedikt M. (2025). Parkland Provision and Walking Access in Selected U.S. Cities: A Comparative Assessment. Paragraphs Environmental Design, 3(3), 21–39. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.24160588

References

  1. Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903102949
  2. Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(28), 8567–8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112
  3. Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Nagel, C. J., Harnik, P., McKenzie, T. L., Evenson, K. R., Marsh, T., Williamson, S., Vaughan, C., & Katta, S. (2016). The first national study of neighborhood parks: Implications for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(4), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.021
  4. Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002
  5. Dony, C. C., Delmelle, E. M., & Delmelle, E. C. (2015). Re-conceptualizing accessibility to parks in multi-modal cities: A variable-width floating catchment area (VFCA) method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.011
  6. Ekkel, E. D., & de Vries, S. (2017). Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008
  7. Fotheringham, A. S., & Wong, D. W. S. (1991). The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A, 23(7), 1025–1044. https://doi.org/10.1068/a231025
  8. Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., Lange, A., & Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 Suppl. 2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018
  9. Hoffman, J. S., Shandas, V., & Pendleton, N. (2020). The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: A study of 108 US urban areas. Climate, 8(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012
  10. Hunter, R. F., Cleland, C., Cleary, A., Droomers, M., Wheeler, B. W., Sinnett, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Braubach, M. (2019). Environmental, health, wellbeing, social and equity effects of urban green space interventions: A meta-narrative evidence synthesis. Environment International, 130, Article 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104923
  11. Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. (2019). The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), Article 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452
  12. Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1451–1456. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.129064
  13. Klein, W. (2024, June). Hartford park condition assessment and custom ParkScore analysis. Trust for Public Land. https://www.tpl.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Hartford-ParkScore-Final-Report-v08052024.pdf
  14. Kwan, M.-P. (2012). The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5), 958–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.687349
  15. Lepoglavec, K., Papeš, O., Lovrić, V., Raspudić, A., & Nevečerel, H. (2023). Accessibility of urban forests and parks for people with disabilities in wheelchairs, considering the surface and longitudinal slope of the trails. Sustainability, 15(10), Article 7741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107741
  16. McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16(4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003
  17. McCormack, G. R., & Shiell, A. (2011). In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, Article 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-125
  18. Nguyen, P.-Y., Astell-Burt, T., Rahimi-Ardabili, H., & Feng, X. (2021). Green space quality and health: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), Article 11028. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111028
  19. Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case study using GIS. Managing Leisure, 6(4), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710110084651
  20. Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017
  21. Rigolon, A., Browning, M. H. E. M., McAnirlin, O., & Yoon, H. V. (2021). Green space and health equity: A systematic review on the potential of green space to reduce health disparities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), Article 2563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052563
  22. Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2020). Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Studies, 57(2), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019849380
  23. Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal, 75(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9303-8
  24. South, E. C., Hohl, B. C., Kondo, M. C., MacDonald, J. M., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Effect of greening vacant land on mental health of community-dwelling adults: A cluster randomized trial. JAMA Network Open, 1(3), Article e180298. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0298
  25. Sugiyama, T., Francis, J., Middleton, N. J., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1752–1757. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.182006
  26. Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30(4), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1068/a300595
  27. Trust for Public Land. (2024a). ParkScore index 2024 [Data table]. https://parkserve.tpl.org/downloads/historic/2024_ParkScoreRank.pdf
  28. Trust for Public Land. (2024b, May 22). Washington, DC, park system ranked as nation's best in Trust for Public Land's annual ParkScore index; Minneapolis places second and Saint Paul finishes third [Press release]. https://www.tpl.org/media-room/washington-dc-park-system-ranked-as-nations-best-in-trust-for-public-lands-annual-parkscore-index-minneapolis-places-second-and-saint-paul-finishes-third
  29. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017