Research continues to be published on the mounting evidence that parks and green space are beneficial to our health. Most recently, research published in the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives found that the total amount of green near a person’s home (not distinguishing between street trees, parks or abandoned spaces) lowered the risk of all-cause, non-accidental mortality. That is, living near green actually reduced one’s risk of dying from things such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. 

In a similar study, Scott Brown at the University of Miami found that in Miami-Dade County, Medicare recipients who lived near more greenery had fewer chronic conditions. In addition, recent studies are finding that adding well-maintained green space to areas that are vacant or gray can also reduce crime and violence. These are only three of the hundreds of studies that have found a strong connection between green space, parks and health. 

Yet, even with all of this research, our most underserved communities still lack access to parks and green spaces. These low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to be located in areas with few trees, greater urban heat island effects, polluted waterways and poor air quality and to experience higher rates of crime and violence. In addition, individuals in these communities have much shorter life expectancies; higher rates of obesity, asthma and other chronic diseases; and lower rates of physical activity. 

NRPA’s Safe Routes to Parks initiative is a national effort to facilitate safe and equitable access to parks for all people. This initiative aims to change this paradigm by providing a platform and the tools to help local agencies tackle these pressing challenges through system-wide policies and practices that address the multiple barriers to park access; ensure that most underserved communities have access to the physical, mental and environmental benefits of parks; and promote a culture of health in communities across the country. 

While Safe Routes to Parks focuses mainly on  safety, equity and access, we cannot ignore the additional health benefits of green space, including mitigating effects of climate change and improving environmental quality of the air, water and land. When considering the Safe Routes to Parks initiatives, it’s also important to consider how they can maximize the sustainability of our communities. For example, when we talk about walkability and access to quality park space, we must also consider the green stormwater management along our streets and increased tree canopy, which provide the respite that is much needed in our most underserved communities.  

To purposefully integrate the domains of Safe Routes to Parks with that of our environment and conservation, we must consider the guiding questions of Safe Routes to Parks:

Does everyone in your community have access to parks within a 10-minute walk? 

Research shows that people living within a 10-minute walk of a park have higher rates of physical activity and lower rates of obesity. To understand where these gaps and barriers in park access exist, we must conduct assessments that use data to prioritize areas for investment and additional park space. This data should consider community factors but should be selected with input from partners and community members: 

• Health and Wellness: Community-level health indicators provide an overview of the overall health of a community. This data should be used to prioritize areas with disparities or higher rates of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma, pedestrian and bike fatalities, and/or homicides.  
• Conservation: Environmental data should look at areas that lack general tree canopies and that have reoccurring flooding problems, poor air quality or brownfields properties. Investments should be based on their potential for environmental sustainability and opportunities to mitigate the effects of climate change.
• Social Equity: In addition to mapping health indicators, it is important that we measure areas of priority based on socioeconomics, although there may be much overlap. This data may include race/ethnicity, income, education or type of dwelling (renter, owner, public housing, etc.).

Can your community members get to their closest park safely and easily?  

Even if communities have a park within a 10-minute walk, this does not ensure that they feel safe walking to or in the park. Assessments and community engagement can help us determine these barriers. As we build, improve and maintain public infrastructure to create safe walking routes, the following will help us provide communities with a health-promoting environment. 

• Health and Wellness: Active design guidelines and complete streets principles will increase pedestrian safety and will encourage users to walk or bike to the park with comfort. The use of signs, public art or marketing can also help increase park visibility and lead users to the park. 
• Conservation: Building and improving sidewalks, streets and park amenities is an opportune time to build sustainable practices such as green stormwater management and increased tree canopies into our streets and parks. Trees provide pedestrians with shade and green stormwater management can provide physical separation between cars and pedestrians to increase safety. 
• Social Equity: Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), increasing eyes on the park or the route, can help address social barriers such as crime, violence or gang activity. These strategies include removing or lowering fences, increasing park entrances and considering the land use and siting of buildings around parks. 

Do your parks have quality amenities and programming that attract local residents?  

Finally, even if we provide a park within a safe and convenient 10-minute walk, this does not ensure that the park is offering what the local community desires. In order to attract local residents and increase the perceived safety of the park, amenities, community engagement and programming should be enhanced and designed with the community and the following considerations: 

• Health and Wellness: Programs and amenities should engage participants in physical activity and should be tailored to varying levels of fitness. Evaluation of these programs and amenities will ensure that they are getting users active.  
• Conservation: Amenities should provide visually appealing and well-maintained natural landscapes that encourage the community to connect with and learn about nature. Programming should also support this environmental education and stewardship of the community park space.
• Social Equity: Programming and amenities should be designed with input from the surrounding community. In areas with many children, high crime or violence and low-levels of park usage, adult supervision may be needed to help children and parents feel safe using the park. 

As we consider the health, conservation and social equity factors in Safe Routes to Parks, it is important that we don’t tackle this alone. Partnerships with environmental health departments, planning and metropolitan planning organizations, water agencies, police, and other city departments and organizations will help you achieve mutual goals. By working together, each of these organizations can pool resources to achieve the desired outcomes. 

In addition, it is important that we continuously evaluate these spaces, initiatives and communities so that we know if we are achieving the desired outcomes. We should be measuring not only physical activity and obesity levels, but also water quality, total water captured, increased tree canopy, effects on urban heat islands, and crime and violence. Through partnerships, such as with the local health department, park and recreation agencies can work with evaluation experts to understand the true impacts of our work. These impacts will provide data to validate your efforts and to increase future investments in similar projects. In an era of limited resource and aging infrastructure, the Safe Routes to Parks initiatives can help us to prioritize our community investments and maximize our resources.

 

Rachel Banner is NRPA’s Program Manager.

 

References 

1.     James P., Hart J.E., Banay R.F., Laden F. Exposure to greenness and mortality in a nationwide prospective cohort study of women. Environ Health Perspect. 2016.  

2.     Brown S., Lombard J., Wang K., Byrne M., Toro M., Plater-Zyberk E., et al. Neighborhood greenness and chronic health conditions in Medicare beneficiaries. Am Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2016. 

3.     Kondo M., Hohl B., Han S., Branas C. Effects of greening and community reuse of vacant lots on crime. Urban Studies. 2015.

4.     Kondo M., Low S., Henning J., Branas C. The impact of green stormwater infrastrcutre installation on surrounding health and safety. Am Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105(3). 

5.     Jesdale B., Morello-Frosch R., Cushing L. The racial/ethnic distribution of heat risk-related land cover in relation to residential segregation. Environ Health Perspect. 2013; 121(7):811-817.

6.     Morello-Frosch R., Jesdale B.M. Separate and unequal: residential segregation and estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics in US metropolitan areas. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(3):386–393.

 7.     Prevention Institute. Violence and health equity. September 2011.