$3.3... 3%...-

 

 
 

..i.flum..mu . “uuwbfigmfim
.. . . . . __ .
inbrflkflflnrt 1 . .Lefififihgfflg I
.. ,. . s. f. ..... r
hm»... ”x a... 2...... ,3...
. .
x333. ..

4.2?!
die”:
. 34 .

.3-1

 

Wain?“

.- Q:
.. y
...1.

. ....wu.....s.......n§.u!..
..m.... 5...”... q.»
. . nun r. :u ,...

. g. . J.
..
. . "-Il-..»

. m. . .2. ...

.. .. $3.... .qunfis at

2.. . .. {$3.3

.2..J»(:x..:. 1:23...) I

...........H..wmi.n. .1 .
..

: r2:

 

. 4.

h
. .553.
flu 1.er

. .. .
53%...Rdhwawv.
3...... any...

it...

 

v.6» 1.1.5. ,
I39... .21! b... 12......
r... 3| .2 .379... 13:}:
2-..... .3 v .
(:5... 51.1.1! . e’sl run:
2.... . .............
23:... in
. 4.5.2.3]...
2 3...?” .a.
.i

§ .t
19.2.55;
2! 2.2.3,...

1.... :11}

1.. tly'tf 013.31... :-

. . n5.¢030}.\.lyl

.30!!! itXt1\|..
.s.€s| 9..) c.

 

11:1... .
3!. i...
ii....0..v
In .1
$4359..
at "up”
'0’”.zl"

. .«IKI v.
1.3....
1.3....

.1:

 

r-)
q

2-..: ..
1.. .. .. .
2...: 2r. . ..
..

33.11.. v.35.-.
a. .15.... lit:

 

0.. ......o .
..

  

 

 

. . -

 

..........T:.

must. LIBRARY

3; Michigan State
° 7 University
This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Environmental Equity of Lansing’s Urban Park Policy

presented by

Sissi Patricia Bruch

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Geography

 

 

fi/ZMM

Major Professor’s Signature
6- l «9k.
Date

MSU is an Aflinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

» ..-—---o-.-.-----.-.--n--.--o--n-.-.-o-.-.-o—.-o-v-n-—a---.--.-.--o----.-----u----.-.— —

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
f.- ‘3 73.79 .... 1 1 '7“.
M'Yl‘ffitl u? L‘ ‘95? ‘1‘ 3
Nov 12 2001.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/C|RC/Date0ue.indd-p.1

 

ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY OF LANSING’S URBAN PARK POLICY
By

Sissi Patricia Bruch

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Geography

2006

ABSTRACT

Studies evaluating the quantity of social and economic benefits gained by
the residents who live near urban parks find that a positive correlation exists
between participation and residential proximity to parks (Page, Nielsen, &
Goodenough, 1994). Because of the inherent uneven distribution of benefits
experienced due to spatial distance, park master plan policies should be explored
from an environmental justice perspective. This research looks at both the
populations that are found in the surrounding area around neighborhood parks in
the City of Lansing, Michigan and the asset expenditures for these parks.

This study focused on the 5 minute walk area surrounding neighborhood
parks (catchment areas). The populations that were found in these areas were
analyzed and the assets in the parks were quantified. The population groups that
were analyzed were Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Above Poverty, and Below
Poverty. The park assets were evaluated based on current replacement costs of
only the man-made elements found in the parks. New methodology for
environmental justice studies were used to get more accurate density calculations.
These methods encompassed the subtraction of non-residential areas from the
census data and the recalculation of densities based on the remaining acreage.

The results showed a slight indication that Lansing’s neighborhood parks
currently have fewer minority and the poverty populations within the study
catchment areas as compared to the city wide population averages. Also, the parks

that have a higher proportion of minority and poverty populations in their

catchment areas show fewer dollars spent on assets. When evaluating the park
master plan for Lansing, it was apparent that there were no specific procedures in
place to address either of these groups (minority and poverty populations). The
recommendations of this research were for both the State and the local government
to require that both the minority and poverty population groups be included and
planned for within the master planning process.

Future studies looking at the relationships between people’s health and their
life styles in comparison to where they choose to live would give greater

knowledge to planners as they make decisions regarding these public resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to Dr. Rex LaMore for his guidance,
continual support, patience, and advice, all crucial in the completion of this document.
My gratitude also goes to my committee members, Dr. Eric Strauss, Dr. David Lusch,
and Dr. Jay Harman, for all their time, advice, and effort on my behalf.

Mr. J emerson from the Parks and Recreation Department and Dr. Sarah Nicholls
from MSU were instrumental in supplying much of the data and information for this
study. My colleagues and friends that helped me through the last two years deserve
many thanks for all the help and support I needed with this document. Their continual
encouragement and understanding was immeasurable for its completion.

My final and most heartfelt acknowledgement goes to my whole family, my dear
friend Carol Graysmith Laws, and my partner Robert Anthony Welch for supporting and
encouraging me through out this long process. I would not have been able to do this

without them and I owe them an irreplaceable debt.

This dissertation is dedicated to my children Christopher and Hans who

sacrificed much and helped me get through this degree.

iv

ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY OF LANSING’S URBAN PARK POLICY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Background ......................................................................... 1
Statement of Problem ............................................................. 3
Hypotheses ........................................................................ 4
Organization of Study ............................................................. 5
Summary ............................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 2 — PARKS
Urban Parks ........................................................................ 8
Social Impacts of Parks .................................................. 9
Economic Impacts of Parks .............................................. 11
Health Impacts of Parks ................................................... 14
Environmental Impacts or Parks ....................................... 15
Summary ........................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3 - URBAN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
REVIEW
Introduction ........................................................................ 17
Urban Flaming .................................................................... 17
Goals and Objectives of Planning ..................................... 18
Urban Planning Theories ................................................ 22
Summary .................................................................. 34
Introduction to Equity and Environmental Justice ........................... 35
Equity .............................................................................. 36
Environmental Justice Studies .................................................. 38
Justice Theories .................................................................... 40
Summary ............................................................................ 48
Locational Theories ............................................................... 48
Conclusions ........................................................................ 50
CHAPTER 4 — LANSING’S DEMOGRAPHICS AND PARKS
Introduction ........................................................................ 53
Demographics ...................................................................... 53
Introduction ............................................................... 53
Population Counts, Race, and Ethnicity .............................. 54
Poverty / Income .......................................................... 56
Demographic Summary ................................................. 60

Parks ................................................................................ 60

Introduction ............................................................. 60
History of Lansing Parks ................................................ 6O
Lansing’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan ........................ 69
Conclusions ............................................................... 86
CHAPTER 5 - METHODS
Introduction ........................................................................ 87
Neighborhood Parks and Study Variables ..................................... 88
Data Sources ....................................................................... 101
Park Data .................................................................. 101
City Data .................................................................. 101
Demographic Data ........................................... . ............ 102
Access Measures ......................................................... 103
Procedures ......................................................................... 104
Methodology Justification ........................................................ 110
Conclusions ........................................................................ 1 1 1

CHAPTER 6 — DATA ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Hypothesis #1 ..................................................................... 113
Hypothesis #1 — Conclusions ................................................... 124
Hypothesis #2 ..................................................................... 126
Hypothesis #2 — Conclusions ................................................... 134
Policy Implications ................................................................ 135
Conclusions ........................................................................ 141

CHAPTER 7 — POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

Limits of Study .................................................................... 144
Variables ............................................................................ 146
Policy Recommendations ........................................................ 147
Future Studies ...................................................................... 151
Conclusions ........................................................................ 153
REFERENCES ............................................................................. 154
APPENDIX
Appendix A — City-Wide Baseline Statistics ................................. 158
Appendix B — Operating Budget for the Parks and Recreation
Department ............................................................... 161
Appendix C Recreation Maps ................................................... 166
Appendix D — Michigan’s Recreation Opportunity Standards ............ 172

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table l — 1992 Master Plan Recommendations ....................................... 62
Table 2 -— Park Density Table. Trust for Public Land ................................. 67
Table 3 — Committees and Focus Groups From Both the 1995-2000 and 2000-
2005 Master Plans .......................................................................... 78
Table 4 — Park Survey ..................................................................... 79
Table 5 —- Lansing Neighborhood Parks and Their Acreages ......................... 91
Table 6 — Number of Neighborhood Park Assets ...................................... 95
Table 7 - Asset Value Based on Estimates from Park Staff .......................... 97
Table 8 — Parks, Assets, and Total Asset Costs ........................................ 97-99
Table 9 — Number of Playgrounds in Neighborhood Parks and the Dates

Installed ............................................................................. 100
Table 10 — Census Data Used in This Study ............................................ 103
Table 11 — Study Variables ............................................................... 104
Table 12 — Matrix for Hypothesis #1 .................................................... 109
Table 13 — Matrix for Hypothesis #2 .................................................... 110
Table 14 -— Matrix for Policy Implications .............................................. 110
Table 15 - Results of Population Percentages Within Catchment

Areas .............................................................................. 114
Table 16 — Population Percent Difference and Index in Catchment

Areas ................................................................................ 116
Table 17 — 1990 and 2000 Average Asset Value by Race and Ethnicity ........... 129
Table 18 —- 1990 Park Asset Information by Race and Ethnicity ..................... 130
Table 19 — 2000 Park Asset Information by Race and Ethnicity ..................... 131

vii

Table 20 — 1990 Park Asset Information by Race, Ethnicity, and

Poverty .............................................................................. 132
Table 21 — 2000 Park Asset Information by Race, Ethnicity, and

Poverty .............................................................................. 133
Table 22 - 1990 and 2000 Information on Playgrounds .............................. 136-
Table 23 -— 1990 and 2000 Information on Average Park Acres and Park 137

Size .................................................................................. 139
Table 24 — Matrix for Hypothesis 1 with Final Findings ............................. 141
Table 25 — Matrix for Hypothesis 2 with Final Findings ............................. 142
Table 26 — Matrix for Policy Implications with Final Findings ..................... 143

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l — Lansing Population ..........................................................
Figure 2 — Lansing Demographic Profile ..............................................
Figure 3 — Percent of Individuals by Poverty Status .................................

Figure 4 — Percent of Populations Below the Poverty Line based on
2000Census .......................................................................

Figure 5 — Percent of Household Income in Lansing 1999 ..........................
Figure 6 — 1922 Neighborhood Park Districts ........................................
Figure 7 — 1922 Proposed Park System ................................................
Figure 8 — 1938 Existing and Proposed Neighborhood Parks ......................
Figure 9 — Lansing Parks ................................................................
Figure 10 — Rate of Park Acquisition ..................................................
Figure 11 — Parks and Recreation Organizational Chart .............................

Figure 12 — Flowchart of the Planning Process to create the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan .........................................................

Figure 13 — Lansing’s Neighborhood Parks ..........................................
Figure 14 —- Lansing’s Neighborhood Parks by Size .................................
Figure 15 — 400 Meter Buffer Area ....................................................
Figure 16 — 400 Meter Buffer Area Clipped by Barriers ............................

Figure 17 — 400 Meter Buffer Area Clipped by Barriers and Non-
Residential Land Uses ............................................................

Figure 18 — Trends of Percent Change Between 1990 and 2000 in
Proportional Representation in Catchment Areas ............................

Figure 19 — White Representation — 1990 ..............................................

Figure 20 — White Representation— 2000 ...............................................

ix

54

55

57

58

59

63

64

66

68

69

74

77

90

93

107

108

109

118

119

120

Figure 21 — Black Representation — 1990 .............................................. 120

Figure 22 — Black Representation - 2000 ............................................... 121
Figure 23 - Hispanic Representation - 1990 ........................................... 121
Figure 24 — Hispanic Representation - 2000 ........................................... 122
Figure 25 — Poverty Level in Park Catchment Areas — 1989 ........................ 122
Figure 26 — Poverty Level in Park Catchment Areas - 1999 .......................... 123
Figure 27 - City-Wide Percentages of Study Populations ........................... 125

Figure 28 - Chart Representation From Table 16. Percentage of
Proportional Representation Within Catchment Areas of
Neighborhood Parks .............................................................. 125

Figure 29 — Number of Parks with Catchment Areas That Have Greater
Than City-Average Population Representation ............................... 127

Note: Images in this dissertation are presented in color.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Background

“A magical alchemy occurs in the best city parks: jangled nerves relax, breathing
cases and a sense of delight awakens” (Mandel, 1998). These and many other benefits of
urban parks have long been confirmed by a number of studies and surveys. Parks benefit
individuals, neighborhoods, cities, and metropolitan regions in measurable areas such as
health, economics, and social welfare (Ferris, Norman, & Sempik, 2001; Mandel, 1998;
Young, 1995). Their impact is so intrinsic to urban existence that since their first
appearance in the late 18005 they have been identified as one of the most valued elements
critical to a satisfactory quality of life and rate second only to safety and security (Garvin
& Berens, 1997).

The quantity of benefits that the public gains through the use of urban parks has a
direct positive correlation to the residential proximity (Page, Nielsen, & Goodenough,
1994) and to the assets found in that park (Hurnpel, Owen, & Leslie, 2002) such as
aesthetics, facilities, and equipment. People living closer (i.e., having greater access to
parks) benefit more from them than people living farther way. Parks with greater assets
are associated with greater use. Recognizing that there is a spatial distribution of homes
surrounding a park, some closer and some further away, there exists an inherent uneven
gain in benefits to the surrounding populations due to park location. Because this

resource’s benefits are gained by proximity, both the location of these parks and the

resources spent on the assets allocated to each park have important implications for the
populations surrounding these parks. This observable phenomenon (benefits gained by
proximity) raises the critical questions of who currently has access to these parks, what
assets do these parks have, and who benefits or is disadvantaged based on location and
assets in these urban parks? Because the determination of where parks are located and
what assets they have generally comes under the purview of urban planners, their actions
have implications that may profoundly affect the urban population.

Studies in environmental justice investigating impacts of land uses and services
show that inequities do exist between population groups based on their spatial
distribution in the urban landscape. They have generally confirmed that minorities and
low-income populations bear an unfair and disproportionate burden of exposure to
environmental harms and suffer from higher morbidity and mortality rates (Liu, 2001;
Pastor & Sadd, 2002; Pastor, Sadd, & Hipp, 2001; Schulz, Williams, & Lempert, 2002).
Some recent environmental justice studies have also investigated whether these
populations (minorities and low-income) have a disproportionately lower gain from
beneficial land uses (Liu, 2001). Because local governments’ master plans ofien guide
the nature, location, and quality of urban parks and since these parks have been shown to
affect the health and welfare of populations based on where they are sited, it is necessary
to assess such park master plans and their outcomes to see what populations they are
affecting.

Planners, concerned with the allocation of public resources, master planning, and
the subsequent social and economic outcomes of planning, are asked to distribute these

resources in an equitable manner. According to the American Planning Association,

planners strive “to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special
responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons” (Planners,
1991). This professional responsibility to address the needs of the underserved in society
is an ethical stand that urban planners have embraced. .

Environmental justice studies have now begun to explore issues of equity based
on a lack of a ‘benefit’ rather than a burden of an ‘ill’. Since urban planners’ land use
decisions and master plans affect the quality of people’s lives (Beatley, 1994), urban
parks and their master plans offer a unique phenomena that can be used to examine and
determine whether this beneficial public resource is being distributed in a manner that
reflects the ethical stance that urban planners have taken in their professional mission.
Parks, and their accompanying assets, are generally considered a beneficial land use. If
minorities and low-income populations have at least the same proportion of access to
these parks and their benefits as the White majority population, then urban planners are
following their professional mission of “recognizing a special responsibility to plan for

the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons.”

Statement of Problem

The outcome of the City of Lansing’s park planning efforts that will be evaluated
to see whether their efforts are truly meeting the planners’ professional goals and
responsibilities. This study examines two of Lansing’s 5-year park and recreation master
plans (1995-2000 and the 2000-2005) and determines whether there exists a measurable

relationship between the distribution of parks, park assets, and the racial and economical

characteristics of residents within an area representing a 5 minute walk (400 meters) to

neighborhood parks. The City of Lansing’s park and recreation master plans are created
and administered by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, whose mission is to
“enhance the quality of life through the preservation and maintenance of park lands, the
provision of quality leisure time activities and the provision of special facilities which
would otherwise not be available to Lansing residents” (Lansing Parks and Recreation
Department, 2000). In carrying out this mission, this agency influences both the creation
and the spatial distribution of parks throughout the city, as well as the assets that are
found in these parks through their budgetary expenditures. Understanding the
implications of these master plans is essential in providing equitable services for the
citizens of Lansing. This is the heart of this study and two hypotheses have been

identified to accomplish this goal.

Hypotheses
The following two hypotheses are derived from two distinct research theories.
The first hypothesis, following positivism, will be tested using quantitative evidence and

looks at the spatial distribution of parks in relationship to race and income.

HJDothesifs 1: Minority and poverty populations are under-represented in the area

encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood parks (400 meters).

The second hypothesis belongs in the realm of ethical normative theory and
requires analysis of the City of Lansing’s Park and Recreational master plans’ predicted
outcomes and methodologies used in resource allocation to parks. This analysis will use

both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess park assets in relationship to race and

income. Use of both of these theories in public policy research is considered a better

overall solution than either one alone (Liu, 2001).

Hypothesis 2: Fewer resources have been allocated to parks located in the areas
encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood parks (400 meters) where greate_r

than average minority and poverty populations live.

Resources are defined as the current replacement costs of the assets found in

neighborhood parks as of 2005.

Organization of Study

This study will be organized as follows:

Chapter 2 reviews the current literature on the importance of parks and their
impact on the populations that used them.

Chapter 3 reviews the current theoretical literature and identifies the relevant
theories applicable to this study in both areas of urban planning and environmental
justice. A discussion on equity is included since this term has multiple definitions and
interpretations throughout the literature.

Chapter 4 goes into detail about the City of Lansing, its demographics, its parks
and assets, and its history, specifically its park history. This information is necessary to
understand the population settlement patterns and the current spatial distribution of parks.
This chapter also includes the specifics of both the 1995-2000 and the 2000-2005

Lansing’s Park and Recreation master plans and their policies.

Chapter 5 opens with a review of various relevant methods of environmental
justice analyses and a justification of the methods used in this study. This chapter
addresses the access to parks, the selection of the 5 minute walk or 400 meter area, and
also covers data sources and specifies the method of analysis for each hypothesis.

Chapter 6 presents the results of the study.

Chapter 7 will discuss findings, the testing of both of the hypotheses, and the
implications for planning and recommendations for future studies or future actions that

could be developed from this research.

Summary

The broad purpose of this dissertation is to evaluate how well Lansing’s park
master plans adhere to the more general urban planning values of ensuring that the needs
of the underserved populations are being addressed. This type of evaluation is valuable
to make sure that our current planning policies are equitable and that they follow the
professional and ethical values held by the people who develop and enforce them. The
planning profession and its body of literature must be aware of the implications of their
actions. If this study finds that the underserved population is not being served equitably,
changes may need to be made and inequities corrected, both in planning practice and in
the training of professional planners.

More specifically, this dissertation will describe the distribution of neighborhood
parks in Lansing and its population, and will evaluate these distributions for equity of
access and park assets for minority and poverty populations. The Lansing’s Park and

Recreation master plans for 1995-2000 and 2000-2005 will be analyzed and their

outcomes in terms of park asset allocation will be assessed against the equity definition

used by today’s urban planners.

CHAPTER 2 - PARKS

This dissertation is designed to evaluate park planning efforts in terms of equity
of park access and assets for disadvantaged populations. This involves the planning
profession, the environmental justice movement, and the parks, which are being used as
the test variable. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the issues and implications of
urban parks on the populations before they can be understood from a planning and
environmental perspective. Chapter 3 will address both the urban planning and

environmental theories that apply to this study.

Urban Parks

Parks have been studied widely since their inception in this country in the mid-
18003. The following literature review regarding parks is organized into four broad
categories encompassing issues for both community and individuals in the areas of social,
economic, health, and environmental impacts. This latter category focuses on more
physical and biological aspects of parks such as pollution and storm water management.
Before beginning to delve into the literature regarding parks, a very brief description
follows describing what is considered a park through out this literature.

Green spaces, urban forests, city squares, zoos, riverfront trails and many other
terms fit under the broad umbrella of urban parks. Urban parks can contain market
places, be inside or part of building plazas, and may even be part of the transportation

systems as boulevards or streetscapes. Not only are park areas for outdoor recreation, but

for shopping, strolling, exercising, driving, and many other activities. Since parks come
in such various sizes and shapes, this literature review will only concentrate on the social,
economic, health, and environmental impacts that parks, in general, have on cities and

their residents.

Social Impacts of Parks

Historically, parks were first designed to improve the urban environment of cities
by addressing both community and individual needs (Woudstra & Fieldhouse, 2000). In
Britain, a report by the Select Committee on Public Walks was given to Parliament in
1833 that identified the benefits of parks. It stated that “parks would be the lungs for the
city and would refresh the air; would improve people’s health and provide places for
exercise; would be an alternative form of recreation to the tavern; and would provide
beneficial contact with nature, so elevating the spirit. Furthermore, as all members of
society would use parks, social tensions would be reduced and the classes would learn
from each other” (Woudstra & Fieldhouse, 2000). Not only do they help people of all
classes mix and enjoy each other, but with the no alcohol laws, it was historically thought
that “drinking fountains provided ideal opportunity for promoting the values of
temperance” (Woudstra & F ieldhouse, 2000). In this country, those same benefits were
experienced and parks were built to help the industrialized, crowded, and polluted cities
in the mid-nineteenth century (Sherer, 2003). Not only did American cities understand
the benefits parks gave their citizens, they also realized the value in transforming polluted

industrialized cities into beautiful, culturally uplifting centers (Harnik, 2003).

Today, parks still offer places to socialize and recreate. Recreation has now been
associated with lower crime rates, higher self-esteem, and increased community
involvement (Land, 2001). In Stockholm, outdoor recreation is considered a
fundamental and inalienable right, and no matter where you live, you are no more than
half a mile from a park that is at least 2 acres in size with convenient and safe access
(Kollin, 2003). In urban spaces, researchers have recommended that restorative open
spaces such as urban parks should be so accessible that they should be considered part of
everyday life and therefore should be placed at a density of 5 per square kilometer or at
about a 5 minute walk (approximately 400 meters) (Thwaites, 2005). Recommendations
and policies like these underscore the importance given to parks by places like Stockholm
and London. Research done by the Trust for Public Land also supports the community
benefits received from parks. They state that “urban recreation and sport programs are a
proven, common sense, cost effective means of preventing crime and delinquency”
(Land, 1995). Another study regarding recreation and crime was done in Fort Worth,
Texas, where the crime was found to drop 28 percent when midnight basketball was
offered within a l-mile radius of the community center (Sherer, 2003).

Findings from a workshop held in 2002 by the National Recreation and Parks
Association (NRPA) state that people’s individual experiences in parks were very
significant in developing self-confidence in children and in the value of public park
departments. An individual responded that “this one department is the glue that held my
community together” (Anonymous, 2002). Backing that statement, a study in Chicago
found that when collective efficacy (“the cohesion among neighborhood residents

combined with shared expectations for informal social control of public space”) was

10

high, as could be seen when community involvement occured in neighborhood parks,
then rates of violence and social disorder were low (Sherer, 2003).

Historical and current literatures agree. Parks do seem to have a beneficial impact
on cities and residents. As stated before, the benefits of increased self-esteem, lower
crime rates, and increased social cohesion can all be attributed to urban parks. Along
with these social gains, parks have also benefited individuals and cities by the economic

impact they have on them.

Economic Impacts of Parks

Alexander Garvin and Gayle Berens did a study for the Urban Land Institute
regarding parks and they feel we have forgotten why the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century cities spent public resources creating parks systems. They feel that
today, as in the past, “public spending on park development stimulates widespread and
sustained private investment, alters settlement patterns, encourages social interaction, and
reshapes the very character of daily life” (Garvin & Berens, 1997). An excellent example
of this can be seen in the economic implications experienced in Manhattan with the
development of Central Park in 185 7. Fifteen years after the park was completed, the
real estate values surrounding the park increased by 9 times compared to the doubling
found in other parts of the city (Garvin & Berens, 1997). Other research also supports
this claim. John Crompton reviewed 25 studies that assessed if parks and open spaces
contributed to an increase in property values and 20 of these studies supported this claim

(Sherer, 2003).

11

Increasing property value results in increased tax revenue for cities. A study in
Colorado estimated that adding a greenbelt to a Boulder neighborhood would generate
$500,000 per year in potential taxes. This same study measured the average home value
near the greenbelt to be 32 percent higher than houses 3,200 feet away (Sherer, 2003).
This seems also to hold true in neighborhoods with poor and immigrant residents. Pincetl
et al., measured an approximate increase of 1.5 percent in the expected sales price of
homes within a radius of 200 to 500 feet from green space in such neighborhoods
(Pincetl, 2003). These studies, along with many others, support the notion that people
are willing to pay more for homes near parks. In a nationwide survey of registered voters
conducted by the National Association of Realtors in 2001, 50 percent responded that
they would be willing to pay 10 percent more for a home located near a park or protected
open space (Realtor, 2001).

On the opposite side of the economic picture, two studies brought up interesting
questions regarding equity and ethics of parks and their development. The first one
asked, "Who were we fixing parks for?" The economic benefits gained from parks are
not equally felt by all the members in a city. Property owners seem to benefit by such
increases of home values, but lower income home renters may actually lose since
property values, and therefore rents, may go up resulting in limited access to affordable
housing (Harnik, 2000).

Another study in 1996 looked at the expenditure of park development and
recreational activities. Where the majority of park users (44 percent) are just people
enjoying a walk, 50 percent of some park budgets are used for organized sports that take

up 25 percent of the park space and are used by only 6 percent of the overall park users

12

(Woudstra & Fieldhouse, 2000). Research also has found that the tendency is to support
male activities over the activities of females and children (Woudstra & F ieldhouse,
2000). The controversy of park fees is another equity issue being addressed currently by
park departments especially in this tight budget era. Since parks are considered a
community public service, how fair or equitable is it to charge for its use and
maintenance (Harnik, 2000)?

Although parks do seem to lead to some economic benefits, a study by John
Crompton reports that an ill kept park may have the opposite effect (Sherer, 2003).
Instead of assets, they become a neighborhood liability. Because a neglected
environment has been shown to foster antisocial behavior (Woudstra & Fieldhouse,
2000), this means that a neglected park is prime real estate for vandalism. An example of
this was Bryant Park in New York in the early 1980s, which became a haven for illicit
drug use and crime. Much of the land surrounding this park was abandoned. After its
renovation, the area surrounding this park had a 60 percent increase in lease activities and
real estate brokers gave much of the credit to this “deal-clincher” park (Garvin & Berens,
1997). Neglect and underuse may also occur when design issues are not well addressed.
Unimpeded automobile access hurts park usage. Banning or restricting cars can restore
life to ailing parks (Harnik, 2000). Another study found that for some park users, the
local parks failed to meet their needs. The lack of opportunity for children to encounter
wild open spaces and the “institutional savanna” landscapes (lawns) and sport pitches
provoked the strongest reaction to under use. Also in this study, the quality of
maintenance seemed to be equated with the quality of the park (Burgess, Harrison, &

Limb, 1988). Many examples of park redesigns and renovations are found in the

13

literature and they support the conclusion that well designed and maintained parks are
economically beneficial, not only for residents and businesses, but also for cities which

have used parks as a way to help attract and retain both tourism and commerce.

Health Impacts of Parks

Studies have shown that people who live closer to parks use them more often
(Page et al., 1994). This access gives these citizens the opportunity to be more physically
active and have greater contact with the natural environment than citizens living farther
from parks. Health studies concur that increasing the physical activity of people
generally lowers mortality rates and improves psychological well-being (Paffenbarger,
1996; Services, 1996), while the lack of physical activity is implicated in cardiovascular
disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes (Shephard, 1994).
Physical inactivity was considered the third leading cause of death nationwide in 2000
(Mokdad, 2004). A study done on older adults found that “park-based leisure
experiences can have a positive influence upon mood states, stress, and health of this
population” (Orsega-Smith, 2004). Other studies have also suggested that health benefits
may be derived directly from contact with natural elements, such as plants, animals,
landscapes, and wilderness (Frumkin, 2001). In addition, qualitative studies have shown
that park users place a high value on scenery and natural features (Woudstra &
F ieldhouse, 2000). This scenic value has again been quantified in health studies done at
hospitals. Patients with a view to green space were shown to heal faster than patients

without such a view (Urlich, 1984). Thus, if people living near parks use them more (i.e.,

14

greater physical activity) and are exposed to greater contact with the natural elements,
they may be deriving greater health benefits than people living farther away.

Although no current literature exists that has been able to determine specifically if
people live longer or are healthier if they live closer to parks, there does seem to be a
logical conclusion from these studies that the greater access to parks result in greater
physical activity which should lead to greater health. Also missing in the literature is the

correlation of naturally active people and their preference to live near parks.

Environmental Impacts of Parks

Environmentally, parks are usually considered an asset to the city. They are
places to increase the biodiversity of plants and animals found in the city, improve water
and air quality, have bioprocesses that improve the environment, and can be used to teach
sustainable practices to park users. Also, park elements, such as trees, help to moderate
the heat island effect that occurs in cities. In one study, trees were found to be able to
filter up to 85 percent of the suspended particles in the air. One hectare of urban trees,
shrubs, and grass can remove 600 kg. of carbon dioxide and return 600 kg. of oxygen in
12 hours (Woudstra & F ieldhouse, 2000).

A study done by the US. Forest Service, quantified the environmental work done
by urban trees. This study showed that one tree, in its 50 year lifetime, can provide the
following economic services (Sherer, 2003):

0 $31,250.00 worth of oxygen

9 $62,000.00 worth of air pollution control

0 $37,500.00 worth of water recycling

15

0 $31,250.00 worth of soil erosion control

By breaking up the impervious surfaces, parks and open spaces in cities also help
with storm water runoff. Not only does infiltration of rainwater occur through the soil,
but trees themselves manage the flow of storm water runoff more effectively and less
expensively than do concrete sewers and drainage ditches. The study done by American
Forests estimated that cities save approximately $400 billion in the construction cost of

storm water retention facilities by their trees alone (Sherer, 2003).

Summary

Parks have long been recognized as an asset in urban spaces. They provide social
and economic benefits to both individuals and communities. From an environmental
perspective, they help communities with both human and ecological health and perform
basic engineering functions of water management and pollution control that would
otherwise be very costly to the public. With the proportion of benefits being distributed
in a spatial pattern due to the location of the parks, and the distance fi'om the residents,
this resource needs to be managed in such a way as to have its benefits distributed as
widely and as equitably as possible. That is where urban planners and their master plans
have the greatest impact. The following chapter looks at the theories that have guided
urban planners in their planning decisions, as well as environmental justice studies that

look at the equity of the various land uses and their distribution.

16

CHAPTER 3 -URBAN PLANNING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REVIEW

Introduction

With an understanding of the benefits associated with parks covered previously,
this chapter seeks to place theory and research at the core of this study to help set the
stage for the current debate of land use planning (i.e., distribution) and policy. Urban
planners and their professional efforts, along with studies of environmental justice, seek
to address the issue of equity in land planning. This chapter will first delve into urban
planning, its goals, objectives, and theories. This section is followed by the various
definitions of equity found in the literature, as well as the one being used in this study,
and will conclude with a section covering theories and studies in environmental justice.
The final section covers some historical background on the environmental justice
movement and contains two subsections addressing justice and locational theories as they

apply to the issues of land planning decisions and land use conflict resolution.

Urban Planning

The urban planning profession in the United States formally began in the early
19005 as a response to the industrialization and degradation of our cities. Defining and
understanding this profession, its purpose, and its theories is the main goal of this section.

This section is organized into two main parts: goals and objectives of planning, and

17

planning theories that relate to equity issues of land planning and distribution. The
purpose of this first section is to show all the facets of planning and how the experience
of the last century, with its benefits and constraints, has led to the current stand being
taken by urban planners. This includes the various definitions of planning and what some

believe is the purpose of planning.

G_oali and Obiectives of Mg

Today, the practice of urban planning is quite diverse with developers, designers,
government officials, and residents of the city all participating in the planning and the
development of our cities (Campbell and Fainstein, 1996). Likewise, professional
planners can be found in myriad fields, such as social science, psychology, health,
architecture, political science, and economics. The encompassing nature of this
profession attracts people with different skills and focuses, thus allowing specialization in
a variety of combined fields of study. This broad perspective begins to explain why the
practice and theory of planning are so diverse.

Planning has been defined by Michael Brooks as “the process by which we
attempt to shape the future” (Brooks, 2002). Nigel Taylor describes planning in the post-
war period and before to be “essentially an exercise in physical planning and design,” and
believes that “planning exists to improve the world.” He continues by stating that
“planning is a form of social action, or a social practice. It is about intervening in the
world to protect or change it in some way — to make it other than it would otherwise be
without planning” (Taylor, 1998). Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein state that

planning “claims to be able to predict the consequences of its actions” and that it “is

18

intervention with an intention to alter the existing course of events” (Campbell and
Fainstein, 1996). Perhaps the most insightful definition of planning is Charles Hoch’s in
which he states that planning seeks “to change the physical, social, and economic patterns
of settlements, especially in the rapidly growing cities, to reduce social disorder and
injustice, while enhancing the efficiency and beauty of daily life” (I-Ioch, 1994).

Planners attempt to address urban issues, whether the issues are social,
environmental or economic in nature. The need and the uses for planning often become
evident when society faces some sort of crisis in one or more of these areas.

In the U.S., the urban planning profession grew as a necessary response to the
difficult conditions found in the late nineteenth century (Hall, 1989). The rapid growth of
cities at the turn of the century was so dramatic that “in 1905, New York’s lower
Manhattan district housed 742,135 people on 2,415 acres, or 195,000 people per square
mile” (Marshall, 2000). Such hyperdensity has not been seen here in the U.S. before this
time or since. As cities industrialized and became more crowded, poverty and crime
rose, while general health deteriorated. Housing conditions and poor social services,
along with the flight of the rich from our urban centers, left cities in need of planning and
reform.

From an environmental point of view, the industrialization of our cities polluted
our air and water, causing health, safety and welfare problems for society. Land
degradation, the creation of brownfields, and the reduction of green, healthy spaces in
cities also called for regulation. According to Brooks, planning considers the
distributional effects of public and private action, and attempts to resolve inequities in the

distribution of basic goods and services. It promotes the common or collective interests

19

of the community, particularly with respect to the provision of public goods, such as
developing parks and ensuring clean air and water for all (Brooks, 2002).

Today our cities are still experiencing social, environmental, and economic
problems. As society becomes more polarized economically and socially, planning is
needed to protect the interest and quality of life of all its citizens, to protect and guide in
the use of its limited and dwindling resources, and to set a course guiding the future
development and growth. Hoch’s explanation of why we need planning shows the
comprehensiveness of the problem.

“Professional planners in the United States take on the problems that

private organizations not only avoid, but tend to aggravate or cause.

These collective problems, such as congestion, pollution, land use

conflict, residential displacement, and flooding, defy simple and

unilateral treatment by a single agency. They are problems that the

markets often create and cannot solve. The complexity and

interdependence of these problems’ causes and effects make even

identifying them a difficult and contested task. [P]rofessiona1 planners

try to classify and analyze these messy problems and propose solutions”

(Hoch, 1994).

The question of who benefits from planning efforts has led many to oppose
planning on the grounds that it is unfair. Questions as to who should decide what is good
for the community and the knowledge that it is only the powerful and wealthy who are
imposing their views on the city and deciding how it is to function and be developed, has
fueled this opposition. Not only has planning been accused of being unfair in its
practices, critics such as Oren Yaiftachel contend that planning actually advances
“regressive goals such as social oppression, economic inefficiency, male dominance,
[and] ethnic marginalization.” He adds that “planning facilitates elite domination and

control of four key societal resources: space, power, wealth, and identity” (Brooks,

2002). The systematic exclusion of minority, low-income groups, women, and the

20

underprivileged and under-represented populations from the planning process reinforces
these views.

Aaron Wildavsky’s 1973 article attacked planning by questioning its
effectiveness.

“To be valid, planning must guide governmental decisions - that is, it

must govern; otherwise there is no reason to do it. In reality, however,

planning never governs, and thus is rarely successful or even accurate in

its projections for the future. Instead of shaping reality, plans are

consistently adjusted to reflect the reality that has occurred despite the

plans. Planning fails, then, to carry out its basic purpose. The favorite

concepts of planners — such as rationality, coordination, and efficiency -

are all platitudes; none of them truly fall within the planners’ range of

control” (Brooks, 2002).

Overall, planners never seem to get things right, in large part because their professed role
is simply impossible. Ultimately, those who continue to support planning do so as an
expression of faith, not reason; accordingly, planning “is not so much a subject for the
social scientist as for the theologian” (Brooks, 2002).

Most of this negative criticism of planning is based on the fact that cities are made
up of a variety of individuals with distinctive needs and planning has affected all of these
individuals at some point. Whether they have been hurt or helped by planning will likely
determine on which side of the fence they sit regarding the usefulness and necessity of
planning. Of concern then is the question of when planning should be done. How many
people need to be helped by our actions before we deem that their needs should be
considered in the overall city plans? By helping these people, how many others will be
hampered by this new plan? Who should decide at what point we help more people than

we hamper? Other issues, regarding whether to plan or not, deal with who will benefit

and who decides who will benefit? Planners must use their professional expertise and

21

balance the benefits of planning along with the constraints that planning causes.
Campbell and Fainstein point out that in making these types of decisions, planners end up
placing a monetary value on the quality of human life; a value-laden task and one that
diverse individuals may never agree on. They state that:

“belief in the public interest is the foundation for a set of values that

planners hold dear: equity protection and equal opportunity, public space

and a sense of civic community and social responsibility. The challenge is

to reconcile these benefits of a common public interest with the diversity

that comes from many communities living side by side” (Campbell and

Fainstein, 1996).

That task requires knowledge of each community’s interests, the ability to define equity
in terms that all will agree on, and the ability to define and develop civic community and
social responsibility.

Speaking directly to this concern, the planning profession has set guidelines for its
practice in their code of ethics. As stated in the beginning of this document, planners
strive “to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special
responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons” (Planners,
1991). This professional responsibility to address the needs of the underserved in society
is an ethical and value stand that urban planners have embraced. This stance emerged
from the problems and issues stated above and the theories that have evolved during the

evolution of the urban planning profession. The following section will review only the

relevant theories that helped this profession arrive at this code of ethics.

Urban Planning Theories

Since urban planning is concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of city

dwellers, many theories that guide this practice abound. Earlier theories concentrated on

22

the physical layout of cities, while more contemporary theories took on a more ethical
stand regarding urban dwellers. These contemporary theories are important to understand
as they guide the current stance that urban planners are taking in planning and designing
our cities, which in turn guides policies that aid or discourage unfair land use practices.
Of the many theories that exist, only the following theories and practices are covered in
this section since they are most related to the ethical stand currently taken by planners or
are highly significant in current urban planning practice: (1) the comprehensive rational
theory, (2) critical planning theory, (3) advocacy planning theory, (4) feminist planning
theory, (5) postmodern planning theory, (6) citizen and the communicative model, and

(7) just city theory.

1. The Comprehensive Rational Theory

In an attempt to address all the needs of its citizens and avoid fixing one problem
and causing another, planners came up with the ‘comprehensive rational theory.’ This
theory combines two other theories, systems theory and the rational process. Systems
theory is based on the assumptions that the city is made up of various sets of
interconnected systems and that these systems can be defined and understood and thus
would lead to a solution to urban problems (Taylor, 1998). The rational process is based
on the assumptions that urban problems are solvable and that they can be analyzed in a
logical and rational manner. This process allowed for the quantification of solutions
being applied to social problems with the belief that plans and policies could be studied
and analyzed for their merits, equities, or shortcomings. The combination of both of

these theories allowed for an overall comprehensive look at the city. No longer would

23

one solution be proposed without an attempt at understanding the effect it would have on
the whole system. The assumptions of this theory are that by analyzing all the elements
and interactions of a system, and by using the rational process, one can resolve all the
problems found in all parts of the cities. In other words, a whole system approach of
addressing urban problems is better than a piece-meal one. Problems can be studied and
resolved in the context of the whole city.

Many criticisms are levied on this theory. Critics take issue with the assumption
that we can ever come close to defining and understanding the complexity of urban
systems. The definition of systems becomes problematic because not everyone would
define them the same way. Also, which systems are defined and who defines them
become points of contention. Understanding the interactions between systems that we
have defined may also not lead to a true understanding of these interactions as we might
have misidentified a system or overlooked a critical one in our identification of the
systems that were analyzed. Further, the assumption that urban problems are solvable
and that they can be analyzed in a logical and rational manner is questionable. Since
human behavior is not always rational or logical, this process ignores basic human nature.
In addition to the whims of humans is the problem of their various and greatly varying
views. What seems to be a logical and rational process for one person may be considered
the opposite by others.

If systems theory is correct that all parts of the city are connected and interrelated,
then a solution suggested through use of the rational process for one part of the city, may
in fact, cause problems for other parts. Also, what may solve the problem for a specific

population group may actually cause problems for another population group. This brings

24

into question the validity of one of this theory’s assumptions. Are all urban problems
solvable?

An additional criticism is that a plan can never be comprehensive because reality
is always more complex (Benveniste, 1989). Since we can’t know it all, our analysis will
never really be truly comprehensive. For instance, a solution that took place in New
Jersey that seemed to correct problems of congestion and slum housing turned out not to
take social needs into sufficient account and was considered by some to be unethical or
inequitable. The construction of the highway and the removal of slum housing resulted
in peoples’ social fabric being torn apart and resulted in a much lower quality of life for
some urban residents. What was thought to be a poor, degenerated housing area, actually
had a well-integrated and healthy social system (Marshall, 2000). Our inability to know
and incorporate all issues in our analysis and solutions has created much opposition and
criticism of planning.

This theory attempts to get to the issue of equity by trying to view the city in a
systematic and comprehensive manner. Because it attempts to understand the connection
between parts, the equity issue comes into play in the definition of the problem and the
weight being placed on the various parts and sections of the equation. The ethics of
equity are not well developed in this theory, but this theory is important because it forces
the understanding of all the parts and their interactions. It is the comprehensive ideal that
has made many cities attempt to create master plans to guide development. The park
master plans that will be reviewed in the next chapter owe their existence to this ideal that

a comprehensive view can make for good planning.

25

2. Critical Planning Theory

“Critical planning theory is concerned with the distribution of power in society
and the extent to which planning reflects this distribution of power” (Benveniste, 1989).
Unlike strategic planning that identifies critical trends, critical planning theory is not
about critical issues, but more about criticizing current planning efforts. The philosophy
that guides this theory is that planning should benefit all of society equally, not just the
powerful. The assumptions that this is based on are that the powerfirl currently benefit
more fiom planning than the general public, and that the planners have the power to
change this status quo. A second philosophical point of this theory is that if planners had
a greater understanding of the current differences and needs found in society today, their
planning would result in an improvement of quality of life for the majority of the
population. The assumptions of this philosophical point are that planners have the
capacity to understand differing cultures and needs, and that planners can adjust the way
they currently plan in response to this understanding. This includes underprivileged
populations and attempts to correct inequalities of the current plan.

Critical planning theory is important in its critical examination of the profession
and its goals. It forces the comparison of actual planning with the general planning
philosophy of protecting the interests and quality of life of all citizens with the added
emphasis on the underserved populations. Although this theory has been criticized for
pushing Marxist and Communist ideals, critical planning theory’s contribution of forcing

introspection and reevaluation of planning goals by the profession is invaluable.

26

3. Advocacy Planning Theory

Like critical planning theory, advocacy planning theory states that there is a
definite difference in the way that the powerful and the underprivileged have been served
by planning. While critical planning is more general in its equity goal, advocacy planners
concentrate mainly on the underprivileged. The powerful and wealthy have no problem
in making their concerns heard and addressed by current planning practices. The system
works for them. It is the poor, minority, and uneducated public that spend their time
concentrating on survival and find themselves facing bureaucracy and regulations that
hamper their efforts to improve their situation. Banking policies and district red-lining
were just two practices that aimed at protecting the privileged and kept many minorities
and poor from owning their own home. Examples like these forced planners to
reevaluate their practice, explore their own assumptions, and redefine their goals.

Advocacy theory is based on the assumptions that the underprivileged have no
voice in the current planning process and that planners can truly make a change in their
quality of life. Advocacy philosophy is centered on the belief that because this
population has generally been ignored by planners, planners have a responsibility to
represent and advocate for a change in the quality of life of this population. Although a
noble and worthy cause, advocacy planning doesn’t usually generate the attention it
requires. These planners generally have little influence and power over the system, and
their clients have little in the way of resources (Benveniste, 1989). Since the planners
want to change the quality of life of the underprivileged, they must gain the required

knowledge of the existing social and economic systems. Manipulation of these systems

27

places planners directly into the political dimensions of planning and provides them the

opportunity to participate in shaping the political climate that can influence their goals.
It is this theory that currently guides the stance that the American Planning

Association takes regarding the professional attitudes and values held by planners. This

theory, based on egalitarianism, seeks to eliminate inequalities.

4. Feminist Theory of Planning

The feminist movement is rooted in the following three general assumptions: “(1)
the position that women are exploited, oppressed or devalued by society; (2) an interest
on the part of the feminist thinker in changing the condition of women’s lives; and (3) the
assertion that traditional, still dominant theory, research, and practice ignore or justify
inappropriate and/or exploitative treatment of women” (Campbell and F ainstein, 1996).
In planning, feminists assert that women’s issues have been ignored and are sometimes
not even acknowledged. Women and men use space differently, yet women’s needs are
not being addressed. While the central business district meets men’s needs, the
residential district, which is generally associated with women, lacks daycare facilities and
convenient public transportation to work, schools, and shopping. Zoning has effectively
separated these uses and created a hardship for women.

Changes need to reflect that although women and men are different, they must be
treated equally. This poses the problem of determining how the equality is to be defined
when real differences exist. Take for instance the idea of justice. Feminists would like to

mete out justice based on contextual understanding and use the ethics of caring vs. the

28

current ethics of judgment in which individuals’ actions are determined to be either right
or wrong.

The issue of equality for feminists revolves around the idea that women are not
just counterparts to men, but they themselves are a whole entity. Feminist planners are
really advocacy planners for women since, in the current system, women find themselves
outside of the decision-making process. Where feminists and advocacy planners diverge
is in the wholesale changes that feminists want to create. They would like to see a world
where there are more “alternative images of the good life,” and where instead of
competition with winners and losers, there could be more team-building and communal
fostering (Campbell and Fainstein, 1989). Knowledge could come not just fiom rigorous
scientific methodologies, but also fi'om intuitive approaches, oral traditions, and symbolic
representations. Logic could sometimes give way to non-rational solutions and sentiment
would be valued. Planning in this new way of thinking would make adjustments for
multiple cultures and help acknowledge and celebrate these differences (Campbell and
Fainstein, 1989).

No theory is without its critics, and feminism is no different in this regard. The
two main criticisms of this theory are that feminism excludes men or doesn’t embrace
them fully, and secondly, that women have many voices, not just the one heard from the
feminists. Another criticism of feminism concerns its definition of knowledge to include
unscientific and intuitive information. This theory is valuable in that here is a group
defining themselves as underserved and thus, with the current planning stance of
addressing the needs of the underserved, requiring a complete change in planning and

policy. This theory, and its implications, illustrates the complex nature of trying to meet

29

the needs of the underserved and the difficulty in mixing the needs of various groups at

once.

5. Postmodern Planning Theory

Postmodernism at its core is the rejection of all that is modern (Knox, 1991). Paul
Delany has defined it as “everything that [other] systems [have] devalued: the aleatory
and the unmotivated, representation in the visual arts, surface decoration in architecture,
small-scale innovation, the superstructure, market forces, popular culture. Everyone can
make their own list.” His last statement captures the essence of postmodernism.
Everybody’s interpretation is equally valid. This also means that since everyone’s views
are equal, then contradictions and inconsistencies are valid and can stand simultaneously
(Delany, 1994).

Postmodern planning theory can therefore be extrapolated fiorn the definition of
postmodernism, and at its basic philosophical core, this theory maintains that everything
in urban environments is equally valid while all modern theories are rejected. In other
words, since modernity has failed, therefore, all the other voices are right. The basic
assumptions for this theory are that modernity has failed, all have a right to a voice, and
all voices are equal.

Rosenau’s description of postmodern urban planning states that “[t]he city is a
text, constituted of different interpretations by various readers. Postmodern planning
dissolves space as a knowable, manageable constraint and replaces it with hyper—space,
which conceives of space as fragmented and disorganized, as manifesting gaps of

undecidability” (Rosenau, 1992). Ted Relph states that “postmodern is not a style, but a

30

frame of mind — [a] confluence of many trends” (Dear & Flusty, 1998). Michael Dear, a
postmodern urbanist and professor of urban planning, describes postmodern planning as
“a pastiche, a hodgepodge, crazy-quilt composition” (Dear, 1986). No longer is the
generally accepted Chicago school’s view of an orderly centric city with segregated land
uses and ring-like growth patterns valid (Dear & F lusty, 1998). A new school of thought,
the Los Angeles school, begins to emerge out of postmodern thinking.

Los Angeles is seen as the epitome of postmodern urban planning. This is
because it was not planned and it has sprawled out of control. Precisely because one
would not plan a city like Los Angeles is why it is postmodern in nature. Criticisms of
postmodernism are many, but since all voices are considered valid under this theory each
criticism is just another voice expressing its (valid) view. This theory is difficult to
assimulate with the current planning stance, yet it seems to present a solution to the issues
raised by the feminists and attempts to mix all needs into one. All solutions work as long
as it doesn’t negate anyones voice. What is interesting in this theory is the removing of
rules and guidelines to try to accommodate all, yet that is also its weakest point. The

underserved may have an equal voice, yet they are still powerless to make a change.

6. Citizen Participation and the Communicative Model

Citizen participation theory addresses the need for the public to be involved in
planning decision making. This simple theory’s philosophy is that the more people who
participate in the planning process, the better the solution. This is based on the
assumptions that the general public knows the issues that affect it better than the

planners, that each person holds different views, and that people want to participate in

31

planning decisions. The communicative model’s philosophy is very similar and states that
“public policy needs to draw upon and make widely available a broad range of
knowledge and reasoning drawn from different sources” (F ainstein, 2000). Its
assumptions are: “(1) all forms of knowledge are socially constructed; (2) knowledge
and reasoning may take many different forms, including storytelling and subjective
statements; (3) individuals develop their views through social interaction; (4) people have
diverse interests and expectations and these are social and symbolic as well as material”
(Fainstein, 2000).

Planners have often been criticized for making decisions that will affect many
people without consulting them about the problem or the solution. The justification for
this has been the belief that “the layman simply cannot understand and responsibly judge
complex technological issues” (Campbell and F ainstein, 1989). Although there is some
truth to this statement, planning issues need not be ensconced in technical language.
People can react to plans or ideas that may make a real change in their environment and
evaluate them according to how useful they find them. Fainstein adds that “within
communicative theory, the planner’s primary function is to listen to people’s stories and
assist in forging a consensus among differing viewpoints. Rather than providing
technocratic leadership, the planner is an experiential learner, at most providing
information to participants but primarily being sensitive to points of convergence.
Leadership consists not in bringing stakeholders around to a particular planning content
but in getting people to agree and in ensuring that whatever the position of participants

within the socioeconomic hierarchy, no group’s interest will dominate” (Fainstein, 2000).

32

The use of this technique has given planners two major benefits. First, citizen
participation in the planning process has helped identify problems or conflicts that may
have been missed by the planners, and secondly, having the public participate in the
decision process helps to build both credibility and acceptance for the decision (Campbell
and Fainstein, 1989).

Reaching an acceptable decision can be a problem, especially since the population
holds a variety of values and beliefs. Politics and diplomacy are involved in this process,
as different groups may require different solutions to a single problem. Educating the
public about all views and coming to a consensus can result in greater tolerance and
understanding between peoples. The opposite can lead to the “assumptions that if only
people were reasonable, deep structural conflict would melt away” (Fainstein, 2000). A
planner is put in the position of being neutral, a position he/she might not hold, and also
of finding a common solution, which may or may not be possible. Other problems with
these theories are the length of time they add to the planning process, and the gap that
exists between the theory and the practice of using the communication model and/or
citizen participation in actual practice. The diversity and selection of the participating
population may also be a problem, especially if the issue involves diversity and the

population is not diverse in its makeup.

7. Just City Theory
Similar to the feminists and the postrnodemists, just city theorists call for a
dramatic change in the status quo. They, like the communicative planning theorist,

believe that the public should participate, not just in planning decisions, but in all aspects

33

of local government. Their philosophy is based on the belief that “progressive social
change results only from the exercise of power by those who previously have been
excluded from power” (Fainstein, 2000). This assumes that governments are not neutral
or benevolent, that planners have protected the interests of businesses, that there are
conflicting views of society, and that the public has been excluded from the planning
process.

Just theorists have two expressions, the radical democrat and the political
economist. The radical democrat would like to see governance being turned over to the
people. They understand that there will always be conflicting views and that it is in the
participation of the public that power is exerted. Political economists are concerned
mainly with the distribution of social benefits and the unfairness related to this
distribution. Although both types of theorists have different viewpoints, their main
purpose is to mobilize the public to bring about change. Prescribing what those changes
will be is not their concern so much as having the public (especially the relatively
powerless groups) participate in governance and in coming up with equitable solutions.

The just city theory is much like socialized democracy and thus shares the
criticisms of both. Socialist criticism related to economic vitality and democratic

problems related to the deprivation of minority needs are both levied at just city theory.

Summm

Although no one theory or method has been developed that addresses all the
issues that planners deal with, an overall ethical stance has been agreed to by the

American Planning Association. This stance, to be responsible for planning specifically

34

for the needs of the underserved populations, can be seen through different iterations in
the previous theories. While some theories will question who are the underserved in
society, planners do have an ethical stance that guides them in their professional work.
Ensuring that current planning efforts continue to address the needs of the underserved
populations is the focus of this dissertation. When planning efforts fail, or population
shifts occur, the result may be that an excess burden ends up being carried by one
population group over another. It is this issue of equity and imbalance that are addressed
in environmental justice studies.

From all the different theories reviewed, this dissertation will use the advocacy
theory because it is most closely aligned to the ethical stance taken by the planning
profession. This theory supports the idea that the underserved population needs to be
aided in having their voice heard regarding planning issues since their position in society
is such that without this intervention, their needs would not be heard. This theory is also
at the heart of the environmental justice movement that tries to advocate for the
populations least likely to defend themselves from unfair development and planning

practices.

Introduction to Equity and Environmental Justice

Since the appearance of the first case in the early 1980s, environmental justice
studies and the issues surrounding these cases have been the subject of much debate.
Specifically, what theory or principles should guide the equitable planning and
distribution of various land uses in relationship to the urban population? This section

covers various studies and theories that have a direct focus on environmental equity

35

issues and begins by first clarifying the meaning of equity used in the literature and in

this study.

Emmy

Equity, fairness, and justice are terms used interchangeably to mean the impartial,
evenhanded treatment of others (Garner, 2001 ). This study uses the term equity. The use
of this term in relationship to land use distribution usually means that one measures the
disproportionate level or inequitable distribution of impacts caused by a noxious land use
on individual populations. Policy makers, minority advocates, and the various population
groups do not always interpret equity in the same manner. The term “evenhanded
treatment” especially in the distribution of land uses, has many interpretations depending
on which distribution theory you hold. There are three general distribution theories that,
if applied, may have completely different policy outcomes (Liu, 2001). They are
egalitarian distribution, input-based distribution, and need-based distribution.

Egalitarian distribution is based on the theory that fair distribution of an item
means that the item is divided into equal proportions and everyone in the group receives
an equal number or portion. In terms of land use distribution, all population groups
would be equally affected, both in a positive or negative manner, by the various land uses
(noxious or beneficial). This is the definition of fair treatment used by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) that states that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or
socioeconomic, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the

execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies (Liu, 2001).

36

The second distribution theory is based on input. This theory states that the
distribution of an item depends on the amount of input that each population puts into the
specific item. In terms of land use, those p0pulations that pay higher taxes, could earn a
great portion of the public land use or a greater benefit fi'om public policy outcome, such
as the reduction of exposure to noxious land uses and/or the increased exposure to
beneficial land uses such as parks.

This distribution theory has been the basis for most of city planning in that each
city collects its own taxes and uses them to help its citizens. A city with higher tax
revenues would not share with other cities with lower revenues. This can also be seen in
specific neighborhoods. School districts with higher tax revenues have greater budgets
for their students than lower tax generating school districts.

The third type of distribution is based on need. This theory states that those
individuals or groups that have a greater need of an item get a larger proportion of that
item. In terms of land use distribution, this can be interpreted by stating that populations
having greater needs of benefits gained from a land use, or greater need to reduce an
impact from a noxious land use, will be given priority over other population groups.
Therefore, groups such as minorities, which the research shows as having a decreased
quality of life and health status, should have greater access to beneficial land uses such as
parks, and have a reduction in their exposure to noxious land uses. This is precisely the
distribution theory that is suggested by the Urban Planners code of ethics. By stating that
they recognize a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and
persons, they are supporting the distribution of land use based on need. It is this type of

distribution that this study uses to measure the equitable distribution of park access and

37

assets. With these definitions of equity explained, the following sections use these

definitions through out the description of the environmental justice literature.

Environmental Justice Studies

Environmental justice studies concern themselves with the equitable distribution
of burdens created as an outcome of human activity, on all populations (Liu, 2001).
These studies, which generally use proportional distribution as an equity definition, have
generally confirmed that minorities and low-income populations bear a disproportionate
burden of exposure to environmental toxins, and that they suffer from higher morbidity
and mortality rates (Liu, 2001; Pastor & Sadd, 2002; Pastor et al., 2001; Schulz et al.,
2002). The federal govemment’s response to these recognized injustices is found in
President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order 12898 directing all federal agencies to identify
and address any effects caused by their policies that would result in highly
disproportionate and adverse conditions specifically affecting these vulnerable
populations (Maantay, 2002). EPA’s definition of environmental justice is in line with
Executive Order 12898, and both emphasize that resulting actions of policies must be
viewed fiom their impact on all populations.

Concerning the impact of various land uses on all populations, the laws that were
put into effect in 1994 attempt to mitigate some of the hazardous and noxious land uses.
Sadly enough, they only concentrate on the noxious exposure, rather than also balancing
the beneficial effects of some land uses through the use of federal policy. Advocacy
planning, which has its roots in need-based distribution, attempts to move the debate

further along the continuum and give disadvantaged populations a say and a chance to

38

address their needs. The failure of planning was the impetus for the grass roots
movement by minorities to address the inequities that they found in the land use
distribution of noxious land uses.

Case after case have been documented that highlight the struggles by these groups
in fighting inequitable land use distributions. The first case in East Los Angeles in the
late 1980s dealt with a hazardous-waste incinerator that was to be located in a
predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. The grassroots movement succeeded in defeating
the state’s plan to locate the first hazardous-waste incinerator in this neighborhood. This
case was followed by one in south-central Los Angeles that dealt with a garbage
incinerator that was to be sited in a predominantly Afi'ican American neighborhood.
Since then, many cases, usually emerging from grassroots activism, have pointed out the
continuing inequities in land use distribution. The one believed to be “the seminal event”
for environmental justice was done in 1987 by the United Church of Christ Commission
for Racial Justice. This report found that race was the most significant variable
associated with the location of hazardous waste facilities and that the poor and minorities
do bear a disproportionate burden of these waste facilities (Liu, 2001).

That all these cases exist and continue to be brought up, points to a number of
complex issues. These are some of the problems with planning as they were discussed in
the previous sections: the diversity in the definition of equity, politics and policies, and
land values, just to name a few. In addition, population shifts and economic downturns
can also affect land patterns and land use distributions. Due to the complexity of existing
inequalities in land use distribution, environmental justice studies measure these

inequalities to help point out the problems in our planning and policies.

39

Equity and justice of land use distributions are at the heart of these cases. In the
following sections, justice theories, economic theories, and locational theories will be
discussed to give a broad view of the impact of various points of view, and how they can

affect land use distribution.

Justice Theories

This section looks at theories regarding broad issues related to justice. In our
current capitalist society and our efforts to plan our cities, not one specific theory
dominates. Instead, current land planning and environmental justice studies use a variety
of theories to best describe the needs and views of the current time and political view-
point. Although many more theories exist, the following are highlighted because of their
diversity in value systems and wide variation of results that can occur from their
application. In addition, where applicable, the economic implications related to people
and land uses will be discussed. These theories are (1) consequentialism or teleological
vs. deontological, (2) utilitarianism, (3) pareto optimality and efficiency of the market
economy, (4) contractarian, (5) egalitarian, and (6) libertarianism (including the free

market and extemalities/spill over effects).

1. Consequentialism or teleological vs. deontological
Consequentialism or teleological theory states that the “correct land-use policy or
action is the one that generates the greatest quantity of value” (Beatley, 1994). In other

words, the correct action is the one that maximizes what is good. In contrast, the

40

deontological theory focuses on what is morally right. It argues that what may maximize
the greatest good, may not be the morally correct action.

These two philosophical points of view are at the heart of the environmental
justice debate. If building a nuclear plant in a poor neighborhood will maximize the land
values in other neighborhoods, and if this nuclear plant results in the greatest good for the
community, should this be done when some find this morally reprehensible? Planners
with their master plans attempt to bring about the greatest benefits to a city and its
citizens, but these decisions are sometimes based on the greatest good even when some
find the results morally suspect. The example covered under the planning section
illustrates this well. The tearing down of neighborhoods to build a highway, though good
for the overall city, completely tore a neighborhood apart (Marshall, 2000). In this
example it was debated that relocating these poor populations would be best for them, yet
in retrospect, that was not the case. The idea of who defines what is good for a
population, how is “maximum good” defined, for whom, and whose moral values will be
addressed, complicates the issue even further. Because of the wide variations of answers
to the previous questions, the debate rages on.

From an economic and spatial perspective, the maximum good for an individual
vs. the maximum good for a community may result in two completely different
outcomes. Sprawl, the current result of many policies, has been blamed for wasting land
resources, yet because it maximizes the profits of businesses and corporations, instead of
communities, it has been dominating the current land use pattern. The same can be said
of big box developments like Wal-Mart that maximize profit at the expense of social

services and employees.

41

For urban planners, doing the morally correct action of addressing the issues of
the underserved population may come under attack from businesses, individuals and

communities that are trying to maximize the greatest good.

2. Utilitarianism

This teleologically based theory has been the driving force of most contemporary
land use policies (Beatley, 1994). It states that “goods and services should be produced
and distributed so as to maximize the total welfare or aggregate social utility. The goal is
to achieve the greatest possible balance of good over bad for society as a whole” (Liu,
2001). Although very similar to consequentialism, this theory addresses not just the
good, but it mixes the bad with the good to look at the net effect. Using the previous
example, the nuclear plant siting would have to be balanced with, for example, the health
costs incurred by the neighborhood and the loss of productivity due to health reasons
from this neighborhood. Although this theory doesn’t totally disregard harms done since
this is weighed in the equation, if the net gain is positive, then harms done are acceptable,
no matter how this harm is distributed. This means that benefit-cost analysis is done and
human lives, health, and happiness are given a monetary value and treated as just another
factor. Land is treated as a means to an end (Beatley, 1994) and current inequities may
be exacerbated if a greater good is achieved at the expense of a few. Questions of value

and how much factors like health and clean air are worth, keep the debate going.

42

3. Pareto Optimality and Efficiency of Markets

Trying to address the harms done, pareto optimality is the “condition in which,
through mutually agreeable economic transactions, a point is reached at which no firrther
transactions can be undertaken that would make at least one person better off without
making anyone else worse off” (Beatley, 1994). Thus, in equity terms, no one would
lose, and at least one person would gain. Theoretically, this prevents greater harm, yet
inequities may still be exacerbated. In reality, this concept is nearly impossible to
practice so the modification of potential compensation of harms (Kaldor-Hicks
optimality) adds practicality to this theory. Thus, Pareto efficiency states that those that
gain will reimburse those that lose, yet still come out ahead. With an economic focus,
this theory encompasses the idea that all those who may lose can get together and
compensate the potential winner so that the action can be avoided. From the nuclear
plant example, the poor neighborhood could potentially buy the land from the city to
compensate for the relocation of the power plant and its output and thus compensating the
rest of the city for the loss of energy. Or, the rest of the city would compensate the poor
neighborhood for putting up with the nuclear plant and all the health issues that arise
from it.

In land use and economic terms, an economy is pareto efficient if there are “no
unexploited gains to trade, no unexploited ways of increasing output with the same level
of inputs, and no mix of products that do not reflect the preferences of consumers” (Liu,
2001). This assumes that the participants are rational, that there is perfect information,
that one knows what and how the maximization of profit or utility is, and that no market

failure conditions exist (Liu, 2001). Criticisms to this arise in the assessment and

43

evaluation of the worth of the land, the harms being done, and the impact on public
health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the assumption that people are the best judges of
what they want, can do something about it, and thus are able to guide the allocation of
resources, is a flawed concept. As markets do not exist in a failure-free condition, this
also invalidates this theory. Again, this principle does not address equity issues and does
not improve the economic position of underprivileged groups.

This theory is important as a guiding principle in the part of planning that helps
with land use distribution issues and decision making. It is incorporated in various
planning theories such as community input and just city where citizens are asked to
participate with the assumption that the solution will reflect the preferences of the people.
What would be a fair exchange for placing the beneficial or the noxious land use in a
neighborhood? If a neighborhood already has low housing values, can the neighborhood
be compensated with a park in exchange for having a nuclear plant located near by?
Would health and land values be held at the same level as before? Since all issues cannot
be weighed, one will not reach pareto efficiency, but compensating for the harms done

attempts to make things more equitable.

4. Contractarianism

This theory belongs under the deontological philosophy. It is morally based and
provides guidance pertaining to the dignity and autonomy of human beings (Liu, 2001).
At it’s core, contractarianism states that “each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others [and that] social and

economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the

least advantaged [and that] offices and positions [be] opened to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity” (Liu, 2001). Rawls, who developed this theory, felt that if
everyone was involved in reaching a consensus without knowing theirs’ and other’s
economic and social positions, they would pick what was best for the poor and thus
minimize pain. Although this does not increase harm done to the disadvantaged, and they
may get the greatest gain, it also does not necessarily reduce inequalities or work towards
the elimination of these inequalities (Liu, 2001).

Contractarianism can be found in a combination of planning theories. Post
modernism and advocacy theories can be matched up to illustrate the equal voice and the
addressing of the least advantaged. As a decision tool, it seems very hard to apply since
one does know one’s social and economic position, but from a planning perspective, it
does address the underserved population’s need, but it doesn’t necessarily address the

core issues that allowed an underserved population to exisit.

5. Egalitarianism
Similar to contractarianism, egalitarianism does work towards the elimination of
inequalities. This theory holds that:
a “All social inequalities are unnecessary and unjustifiable, and ought to be
eliminated
o “All men are equal — now and forever — in intrinsic value, inherent worth, and
essential nature

0 “The concept of justice involves that of equality

45

0 “Social equalities need no special justification, whereas social inequalities

always do

0 “All persons are to be treated alike, except where circumstances require

different treatment” (Liu, 2001).

Planning theories such as advocacy and just city are based on the principles of
egalitarianism. Criticisms to this theory are usually levied based on efficiency. The
greatest gain may not be achieved by the disadvantaged, yet inequity would be reduced.
The moral stance of this theory has been embraced by many environmental movements.
Not only do they want to prevent injustices by addressing “not in my back yar ” issues,

but they go farther and push for the idea of “not in anyone’s back yar ” (Liu, 2001).

6. Libertarianism

Similar to the two previous theories, libertarianism, based on Kant’s humanity
principle that you treat others as an end, not as a means, states that everyone is equal, yet
it emphasizes the freedom of action. This means that people may do as they wish, just as
long as they respect the rights of others to do as they wish. Harm occurs if your freedoms
are curtailed by others. The government would then take action in case of aggression or
mm. In terms of land use harms, this philosophy, of minimizing harms is really the
basis for the practice of zoning and other land use controls (Beatley, 1994). Since
disputes will occur as to what a harm is and what restrains freedom, nuisance laws and
land use ordinances establish the criteria for defining a harm. This raises conflicts when
issues, such as environmental pollution, are difficult to assess in terms of value lost,

affected health, or harm done. According to Beatley, many philosophers view that the

46

existence of public harm by private actions is the reason for government; the intervention
and social constraints on private actions. Libertarianism is also the foundation for free
markets and the conflicts of externalities.

Free markets are based on the hypothetical ideology listed below and thus do not
really exist. They are supposed to bring about efficient allocation of resources and
assume the following (Beatley, 1994):

o No one can increase or decrease the price of a good due to their control of the

available share by restricting supply or demand.

0 All have firll information regarding quality of goods and value worth of the

exchanges.

o All are self interested actors that are assumed to be rational wealth-

maximizers.

o All goods and services have no externalities or spill over effects on others.

0 The costs of the transactions are all either equal or cost free.

Critics of free markets point to the externalities ignored, the unaddressed equity
issues, and the impossible valuation of resources such as clean air. Adam Smith’s
invisible hand explaining fiee markets is refuted by Alex Marshall, who contends that for
this to happen, there is an invisible arm of government that has set all the infrastructures
such as roads, in place (Marshall, 2000).

The issue of externalities and spill over effects can occur when free market costs
don’t take into account public expenditures such as health costs due to industrial

pollution, water filtration systems to clean up industrial residue, acid rain effects, etc.

47

These unintentional impacts are not taken into account into the original cost of the free

market goods and thus the public ends up picking up the tab.

Summgy

These 6 philosophical theories show the various points of view regarding justice
and equity and how they can affect the decisions to be made regarding land use.
Depending on the one used, the results can vary significantly and yet be considered
equitable by some portion of the population. Since decisions regarding land use
generally result in the building of permanent structures and uses in specific locations in
the urban landscape, it is important to understand how p0pulations are affected. Since
populations have greater mobility than the land use, how does that affect their final
relationship to the land use in the urban environment? In other words, who can or cannot
move away from the noxious land use, and is it an issue of population shifting due to land
use development, or is it land use development that determines what populations live
there? The following section covers briefly theories and literature on the spatial

distribution of land uses and population.

Locational Theories (Also known as spatial economics, regional science, urban and
regional studies, urban economic theory, location theory and economic geography.)

This section looks at the spatial distribution of land uses and population and how
they anived at the place they are today. These theories and effects try to explain past and
current land use patterns. They are (1) Von Thunen’s theory, (2) externalities, and (3)

population location.

48

1. Von Thunen — theory of agricultural land use. Although this theory was
originally used to explain agricultural land uses, it is applicable to current
urban land uses. It states that land within an urban area is allocated according
to the rent that the competing users are able and willing to pay (Liu, 2001).
This theory explains why the monocentric theory of city growth shows spatial
patterns with class divisions. It is the competing users who are unwilling to
pay the same amount for neighborhoods with higher minority and poor
populations, thus the segregated neighborhoods emerge.

2. Extemalities — both in land use and social

a. Land use — if industry increases pollution, this can drive the population
away from that site. This effect can occur over time, and although it
can be changed or reversed due to a cleanup effort or new technology,
this increases social cost.

b. Social — if racial discrimination exists, once there is a predominant
race that has moved into a neighborhood, it can quickly change the
entire neighborhood. This is known as neighborhood tipping.

3. Population location
Population location or distribution has been described by the Tiebout model.

This model predicts that people choose a place to live based on it satisfying

his/her preference pattern for public goods. This means that individuals have

freedom to live where they want to and thus choose their living environments.

This assumes that an individual has perfect knowledge of the community, free

mobility, no restrictions, and no externalities exist. This model was supported by

49

empirical data and the study showed that a better package of goods (i.e.,
neighborhoods with parks rather than industry) increases housing costs even if
race is taken into account (Liu, 2001).

Another study that looked specifically at population settlement patterns in
response to toxic facilities, found that the disproportionate siting of toxic facilities
mattered more than minority move-in (Pastor et al., 2001). This brings back the
question raised earlier regarding parks and population shift. Although no studies
substantiated this, the question was made, “who are we fixing our parks for”
(Harnik, 2000). Since a better package increases housing costs, does this force a

minority move-out?

Conclusion

As Liu and other authors have stated, there does not seem to be a consensus on a
single specific theory, but many of the theories reviewed, can offer some explanations for
the current state of our land use patterns and for the continual controversies raised by
environmental justice cases (Liu, 2001). Depending on which theories of planning one
picks, what decision-making philosophies and definitions of equity and justice one holds,
and which locational theories apply to the current urban environment, these combinations
will result in different policies and have widely varying consequences for each
population.

In relation to park and park policies, the theories reviewed attempt to establish

guidelines for planners to arrive at the most equitable and best solution. In the realm of

50

positivism, the comprehensive rational theory and the critical planning theory try to use
scientific orderly thinking to guide the solution. To challenge this century-dominating
paradigm (positivism), phenomenological perspectives can be seen in the theories of
advocacy, feminism, postmodernism, communicative, and the just city and try to bring
the individual perspective into the park planning solutions. In addition, the question of
what or how one defines equity is complicated with how one goes about bringing an
equitable solution for all. The review of the justice theories gets specifically into this
debate. Consequentialism, utilitarianism, and pareto optimality go for the greatest good
while minimizing the harms done. Minorities and the disadvantaged are not well
represented in these theories. Contractarianism, egalitarianism, and libertarianism take
into account the issue of equity and begin to question actions that harm anyone,
regardless of gain.

With the diversity of theories that contain differing concepts of justice that are in
conflict with one another, someone will always feel that there has been an injustice being
made. Because of this disparity in views and guiding principles, today’s planners need to
rely on their professional’s ethical stance, though there are still many unspecified values
and undefined terms that result in differing outcomes. Studies like this dissertation
attempt to understand if injustices exist, what type of injustice exists, and why it might
exist. The theories and principles reviewed are valuable in shedding light on a very
complex and value laden issue.

The review of these theories was instrumental in selecting and shaping this study.
The hypotheses evolved from a desire to understand how current planning documents

such as the park master plans influence the community that they serve. Understanding

51

the various definitions and views of equity helped shape the data collection so that it
would follow the needs-based definition that aligns itself well with the advocacy theory.
The values implied by the Planners’ ethical stance were substantiated by the
deontological justice theories, and in lieu of the population location theories, force the
review of current planning practices to insure the desired outcomes. Although this study
will only look at a specific outcome of the park planning policy, it is hoped that through
the understanding of resource expenditure, awareness of the inequities that may exist can

be corrected.

52

 

CHAPTER 4 — LAN SING’S DEMOGRAPHICS AND PARKS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to better understand the current state of Lansing’s
demographics and its park system. This is critical since this dissertation will use specific
population groups in the city of Lansing and selected parks fiom the overall park system
as a case study. In addition, two parks master plans (1995-2000 and the 2000-2005) are
being reviewed and analyzed in this study. This chapter is divided into two main
sections, the first one being the description of Lansing’s demographics and the second
one concentrates on its parks. While the demographic section generally illustrates
population trends, the park section will review the park history and the Department of
Parks and Recreation’s master plans that have helped to shape the park system that is in
place today. Throughout these sections, the variables used in this study are defined.
These include race, ethnicity, income, neighborhood parks, park assets, and catchment

area of these parks.

Demographics
Introduction

This section shows the overall population trends that are taking place specifically
in the City of Lansing with selected comparisons to Michigan and the nation. Overall

population counts, racial and ethnic profiles, and poverty levels are explained. This

53

section also defines the following population variables used in this study: race, ethnicity,

and income.

Population Counts. Race. and Ethnicity
Figure 1 shows that Lansing experienced a sustained population growth between
the early I900S and thel 9705. Since then, the population has been slowly declining and

has dropped from an all time high of 131,506 people in 1970 to an estimated 116,941

persons in 2004.

 

Lansing Population

Populatio

 

9.93.33-
§§§§§

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004

Year

 

 

 

Figure 1 — Lansing Population (Commission, 1954), (Development, 2000), (Bureau,
2005)

This decline in population is not unique to Lansing. Between 1990 and 2000 only three
cities in the state of Michigan with populations over 100,000 saw an increase (Grand
Rapids, Sterling Heights, and Ann Arbor) (Bureau, 2006). The remaining five cities with
populations over 100,000 (Detroit, Lansing, Flint, Warren, and Livonia) experienced an

average decline in population of 6 percent. During this period, the overall state

54

population increase was only 7 percent (Thornton & Weissert, 2002) compared to the
nationwide growth of 13.1 percent (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.htrnl).
Although the overall population in Lansing is decreasing, its diversity is
increasing. Figure 2 shows the steady growth of the Black and Hispanic populations (as a
percentage) since the 1970s. Information on the Hispanic population collected by the

census bureau was not available in a separate format before this date.

 

Lanelng'e Racial and Ethnic Profile

Percent of Population

 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Yeere

 

 

 

[- White I Black a Hispanic 3 American Indian ]

Figure 2 — Lansing Demographic Profile (Bureau, 2005).

 

Lansing experienced a 28 percent growth of Hispanics between 1990 and 2000, but in the
mid-Michigan area (includes the metropolitan areas of Ann Arbor, Benton Harbor,
Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, Jackson, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, and Saginaw-Bay City-Midland), the growth of this group varied

fi'om 18 percent to 153 percent. Grand Rapids (153 percent) and Benton Harbor (113

55

percent) have seen the overall greatest grth in this population group, with Saginaw
only showing a grth of 18 percent (Thornton & Weissert, 2002). The Black
population is also experiencing growth in Lansing. Between 1970 and 1990, the Black
population doubled in size (from 9.3 percent to 18.6). In the 2000 census, the Lansing
Black population grew to 21.9 percent. Because of the significant changes in both of
these two dominant minority populations, this study will use Whites, Blacks, and
Hispanics as population variables. The Asian and the American Indian minorities
comprise less than 3 percent of the population.

Blacks and Hispanics experience discrimination differently and, therefore, these
two populations will be analyzed separately. Blacks, which may contain Hispanic Blacks
in the overall count, usually experience greater discrimination, as an overall group,
compared to Hispanics. Hispanics, although they may also contain Blacks in the overall
count, also have very light skinned members and thus seem to assimilate better in the
White majority. “Usually, the lighter-skinned people, such as those whose features most
like whites, are treated less harshly and receive less discrimination” (Thornton &

Weissert, 2002).

Poverty/ Income
Although Lansing’s population is experiencing an increase in racial and ethnic
diversity, the percentage of individuals who are living below the poverty line is on the

decline (see Figure 3).

56

 

Percent of Individuals In Poverty

 

I Lansing Total
I: MchiganTotal
I US Total

 

 

 

1989 1979 1989 1999
Years

 

 

 

Figure 3 - Percent of Individuals in Poverty (Bureau, 2005; Wikipedia) (Lansing data
came from the Census Bureau 1990 and 2000 SF3 Poverty tables).

While this decline in poverty is a positive trend, the fact that almost 17 percent of the
population is living below the poverty level makes for a large percentage of the
population that is in need of public services. According to the 2000 census (see Figure
4), families in Lansing falling below the poverty line encompass 13.2 percent of all
families, compared to 16.9 percent of individuals. Individuals under the age of 18 and
living in poverty make up 23.2 percent of that population group, while 9.0 percent of the

people who are 65 and older are living below the poverty line.

57

 

Percent of Popuiatione below the Poverty Line - 2000 Census

 

.lLansing‘iii
iDMchigan‘Xi
IUS%

 

 

 

Families hdivlduals Lhdef 18 Over 65

 

 

 

Figure 4 — Percent of Populations below the Poverty Line based on 2000 Census.

This poverty information is based on the poverty levels set by the national Office
of Management and Budget, which in turn, is based on complicated formulas that take
into consideration, income, individuals, families, the Consumer Price Index, sex, food
prices, and nutritional diet recommendations. With these guidelines, the census bureau
uses the population information and 48 poverty thresholds to determine the number of
individuals and families in poverty (Bureau, 2006). This leads to multiple income
numbers representing poverty. Poverty varies by population type (age, household,
individual, etc.) and it is not defined specifically by household income. Figure 5 shows

the overall household income for both Lansing and Michigan.

58

 

Percent of Household Income in Lansing and Michigan in 1999

 

   
  
 

$200,000 or more J .
$150,000 to $199,999 4'
$100,000 to $149999

—
ML afiR';ZJ‘t-¥‘Jki II .

 

 

  

$75,000 to $99,999 ‘

 

 

 

550.000 to 574.999 _- gum ”a“, H naming
$35,00010$49,999 _ ‘ , _ 7‘ - .. lMichigan

 

 

 

 

 

Household income

$25,000to$34,999 Jan -_ o , ‘

 

$15,000 10324.999 ‘ - A ' . - - new

 

$10,000 to $14,999

 

 

 

Less than $10,000

 

 

15 20 25
Percent

 

 

 

Figure 5 — Percent of Household Income in Lansing 1999. Data source: Census Bureau
2000 census, SF3 — DP3 Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics.

Overall, Lansing has a higher percentage of its population earning under $50,000
and a lower percentage of its population earning over $50,000 than the state percentages.
Of the households in Lansing, 19.1 percent earn less than $15,000. This economic
picture of Lansing shows a city with a significantly lower median household income than
the rest of the state. The median household income in Michigan is $44,667, while the
median income in Lansing is $34,833. Recognizing that populations of lower
socioeconomic status need and use more social services, and that people in poverty are
considered underserved populations, this study will use poverty levels as a determinant to
place people into the underserved population category. The two population groups will

be Above Poverty level and Below Poverty level.

59

Demogr_aphic Summary

This section established the race and ethnicity variables in this study as Whites,
Blacks, and Hispanics and the income variables were set at Above Poverty level and
Below Poverty levels. The population of Lansing was very homogeneous before the
1970s. Today, there is a greater disparity in incomes and a greater diversity in race and
ethnicity. This population shift creates different needs and expectations due to the nature
of the emerging population groups. With this information, the following review of the
park system and its policies will help to give a good, broad understanding of the issues
facing the Park Department in their efforts to address the needs of the current shifting

population.

Parks
Introduction

This section covers issues that concern the City of Lansing’s park system. It
encompasses the history of Lansing parks, the parks master plans, and then it focuses
directly on the neighborhood parks. Under the neighborhood park section, discussions of

assets and catchment area are undertaken and all park related study variables are defined.

History of Lansing Parks

Lansing was first settled in 1837 and became incorporated in 1859. By 1889,
only two parks existed and one of them was formed from an abandoned cemetery. Only
one additional park would be added by the time the first master plan for the City of

Lansing was created in 1922. Previous to that, home-rule was established in Lansing in

60

1912 and a City Planning Commission was formed in 1920 with one of its active
members being both the Superintendent of Parks and the City Forester. This commission
requested a comprehensive city plan to be done that year by Harland Bartholomew, a city
planning engineer from St. Louis, Missouri, and by 1922, the final report was completed.
This report was very critical to the existing conditions of Lansing in the 19205
(Bartholomew, 1922).

The report stated that the planning of the city was deficient in the reservation of
space for a central square that contained the capitol.

“There was not generous provision of open spaces for state

buildings, no placing of streets for impressiveness, no reservations

of native woodland, and no appreciation whatever of the value of

the river and riversides as public property. As a consequence of this

unfortunate lack of vision Lansing is now a most ordinary city

(Bartholomew, 1922).”

Although Bartholomew was highly critical of the development of Lansing, he felt that

the park system at the time was “of more than ordinary distinction.” This was due to the
amount of lands donated toward the park system, although not yet developed.

The recommendations of the 1922 master plan related specifically to parks were

as follows:

61

Table l - 1922 Master Plan Recommendations
1. Develop facilities for organized play. This included maintaining and

 

adding playgrounds, community centers, and playfields.

 

2. Extend the park system to serve more people. High-use neighborhood
parks of about 20 acres in size need to be acquired within the city.
Extended outlying parks of a more naturalistic nature should be reserved
along the riverfront. Riverfront property also needs to be added in as

large a quantity as possible in the center of town and kept for scenic

purposes.

 

3. Connect all parks with scenic drives. This was expected to occur
specifically along the river edges, but existing streets were to be updated

that connected interior neighborhood parks.

 

4. Develop small parcels throughout the city to add dignity and character to

the capitol city.

 

5. Create cooperation between social agencies to help in the location of

corrnnunity activities.

 

 

 

Figure 6 shows a plan of the proposed neighborhood districts that Bartholomew
felt needed additional park lands. Figure 7 shows the proposed parks and the connecting

“pleasure driveways” that were envisioned for the Lansing park system in 1922.

62

 

OF
I G-
IGAN

SHOW

met-mp PARK. pm

Mo;-

1'»:-
N
C

I

C.
‘ILA.
M

 

 

./

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY PIAN WI”: SAD" 1.01.118
1971.

“LELAND IAITHOLOMIW

DISTRIBUTION 01’ POPULATION

 

 

m District in which neighborhood park may be developed

I “ District needing neighborhood park

 

 

 

4’ 13
3 A a.
/ / g e E
a. .8 g
- ”g 3°51) .5
_ “E g 3
3 3‘ in
I: ‘e’ '8
8
m '9; g g
2 '5 e
P- .22 'E
c .- W E o :3
TIEU
i
t
.51"
5::
ram “D II
IIIEBDIBDGDBDDDB
.- 'EEEfiamggfiaa-i
mwhmna ..
m9 IIIG ”.5
lellEillllEElEii 811g; '
Mim~mm
" NJ i'.l
iii 51E ..
, 5:1" i . ‘1
_""'m-¢ Fm— "In-run— L?" A r

 

 

Him ”I

 

 

 

\\§1

 

 

Figure 6 - 1922 Neighborhood Park Districts — Bartholomew

63

 

was;
2:32.— vomoaok— I

Engages I

.8885 cram
e 29:92 Ease
EU a 95m 3.3m

5m—
m5Q. .52” 3.32.05 25.. E0
Zuionorhdtd 024.32:

96523
“85 b

I
U—

3%
K

iHIH

I .012 _

4
ho

 

2.
<1:-
0

Figure 7 - 1922 Proposed Park System — Bartholomew

In 1938, based on a request from City Council, Bartholomew was asked to do an
updated Comprehensive City Plan for Lansing (see Figure 8). In this report,
Bartholomew reports that the city has made most of its improvements following the
master plan, and that most of the park development recommendations listed in the 1922
report are now a reality (Bartholomew, 1938). This early city planning effort and the
subsequent master plans that have followed, have left Lansing with the distinction of
having “more parks per capita than any other city of its size” according to Eric Reickel,
Lansing’s past director of Parks and Recreation (Andrejevic, 1995).

In 1944, the Park Board, a citizen-based advisory board that assists the Parks and
Recreation Department, was officially established. Its members serve a four-year term
and are appointed by the Mayor and approved by City Council. There are many boards
and clubs today that also advise, support, and participate in various ways within the Parks
Department. Some of them are: baseball advisory board, fiiends of Cooley gardens, Gier
center advisory board, and the river and waterfront development boards. Input fi'orn all
of these boards is gathered by the Parks and Recreation Department in its effort to
continue to maintain and develop the Lansing’s park system.

Lansing currently has a park system containing cemeteries, golf courses, and three
different types of parks. There are 106 parks in the system and 60 of them are classified
as neighborhood parks. In 2000 the total park acreage in Lansing was 1,765.19 acres
with an average park size of 16.3 acres (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department,
2000). This gives Lansing a park density of 14.8 acres per 1,000 residents (using the

2000 population count of 119,128). In a study done by the Trust for Public Land, park

65

densities were determined for the 50 largest cities in the country using 2002 data. The

closest cities in population to Lansing are shown in Table 2.

 

 

ha Unit

8.5g 5 5.53:: £32
535 5 an: 5— =-=!= Kilo

gen 5 2.3: 33* :53! 25-5

 

 

 

 

39—82 \~ 2.! .l I
=2: ! 3.5:. B It gal I
3.! 8g.- c-zfl: I

azuoud i

2“: 80:32:95 engogb 02:2:

1.8L? trill; I ii»

iii.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,c., 1.: 3:0,, .1:
Z...Z3-n. 011...: 1.x.
3 2099 to :935550 92.3:
2 O _ m m _ << << 0 U ....
z < n ._ > h _ u I...

z<o_:o_<<
UZ_mZ<i_

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 - 1938 Existing and Proposed Neighborhood Parks — Bartholomew

66

Table 2 - Representative Park Densities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Park Density Population
(Acres per 1000 Residents)
Toledo, Ohio 7.1 309,000
Tampa, Florida 16.7 315,000
Cincinatti, Ohio 21.6 324,000
Pittsburgh 8.3 328,000
Wichita, Kansas 22.2 355,000
Colorado Springs 30.9 371,000

 

 

 

The average park density in these cities was 17.0 acres per 1000 residents. No

study has been done for cities with population numbers that are closer to Lansing’s, but

from the numbers, Lansing is not too far off from the average park density of these larger

cities. If the acreage of golf courses and cemeteries are included, Lansing’s park density

increases to 19.4 acres per 1,000 residents.

Figure 9 shows a map of all the current parks in Lansing and Figure 10 shows the

number of neighborhood parks acquired by year. The chart shows a steady progression

of park system growth through the 19705. The decline in park grth seems to correlate

well with the first signs of population decline experienced by the City of Lansing in the

19705.

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Neighborhood Parks
‘- — Community and City Wide parks
Figure 9 - Lansing Parks - 2000. Lansing Boundary
Roads

68

 

New Parks

 

8

 

 

25 / \

15 / \
10 / \

 

 

 

 

Number of New Parks
8
/

 

 

 

 

Before 1900 1900-1919 1920-1939 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000+
Years

 

 

 

Figure 10— Rate of Park Acquisition. (Recreation, 2003). Note: 8 parks totaling 54
acres, did not have acquisition dates.

Although no new neighborhood parks have been added since 2000, acquisition of
land to increase existing parks continues today by the city. This effort is mainly being
concentrated in the large city-wide and community parks such as the River Front Park
and Graves Park. It is with activities like acquiring parklands that the Parks and
Recreation Department uses its many advisory bodies to help determining the priorities
and goals for the park system. These guidelines can be found in the Parks and Recreation

Master Plan.

I_._ansing’s ParkL and Recreation Master Pla_r_r_

The Parks and Recreation Department is in charge of creating the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The mission of this department is:

“to enhance the quality of life through the preservation and maintenance

of park lands, the provision of quality leisure time activities and the

provision of special facilities which would otherwise not be available to
Lansing residents” (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, 1995).

69

To achieve this mission, the various master plans were created. The overarching goal of
the 1995-2000 master plan was to:

“provide guidance for the city’s park and recreation planning and

development efforts into the new century. This document is a

comprehensive plan developed to assist the city in providing quality

recreation and leisure experiences to its citizens” (Lansing Parks and

Recreation Department, 1995).

The 2000-2005 master plan has the same goal, but is more specific by stating
that it is “providing quality parks, forestry, cemetery, golf, zoo, recreation and
leisure time programs for its citizens” (Lansing Parks and Recreation
Department, 2000).

The Parks and Recreation Department submits a master plan every 5 years to the
State of Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in order to “qualify for
grant approval allowing funding for the costs of capital improvements and land
acquisitions” (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, 2000). The format of this
master plan was established by DNR’s Grants and Management Section and has 5 basic
sections: (1) community descriptions, (2) description of community administrative
structure, (3) description of the planning process, (4) recreation inventory, and (5) action
program, capital improvement schedule and rationale.

All of these 5 sections can be found in both the 1995-2000 and 2000-2005 master
plans. These two master plans will be reviewed below with specific emphasis on the
planning process (3) and action program (5) sections. These two sections are highlighted
because they describe the planning process that leads to the action program, which in turn

drives the capital improvement schedule. The selection process that leads to the action

program is critical since this study is specifically looking at the underserved populations

70

and evaluating if this planning document follows the American Planning Association
guidelines of “recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged
groups and persons” (Planners, 1991).

Since the master plans guide the actions and procedures of the Parks and
Recreation Department (PRD), their creation and the subsequent action plans that come
from them guide the expenditure of resources and the priorities for park development. It
is these results from budget expenditures that are the central core of this dissertation
which will review and analyze their equity treatment of the various population groups in
the City of Lansing. The following sections go into detail and give a description of the
master plan contents, which is required by the DNR, and the information supplied by the

Parks and Recreation Department (PRD).

(1) Community Descriptions

This section is divided into two areas. The first one deals with the social
characteristics of the population, while the second section is a description of the physical
characteristics of the City of Lansing. In the first part, data and discussion are
specifically requested about age, employment trends, households, persons with
disabilities, population, race and ethnic groups, gender, and senior citizens. To that end,
the PRD hired a consultant to use the 1990 census and map the census tracts over the city
parks to better understand the population encompassed within the parks influence areas.
Both the 1995-2000 and the 2000-2005 master plans use the same 1990 study since the
2000 census was not available at the time the 2000-2005 master plan was being

compiled. These data are only analyzed per census track and are very general overall.

71

The complete synopsis of the study is presented in Appendix A. The main highlights of
this study show a diverse population with a median age of 29.7 years. One in 10
residents of Lansing is a college student and 27.4 percent of the population is under age
18. In describing the labor force, the study showed that retail employs 19.1 percent of the
workers, followed by manufacturing at 11.6 percent, and closely behind that is public
administration with 11.4 percent of the work force (page 1.9, 2000-2005 Master Plan).
The second part of the community descriptions section concentrates on the
physical characteristics of Lansing and requires information on land use patterns and
zoning, topography, water resources, fish and wildlife, soils and vegetation,
transportation systems, and climate. All this information is described in very brief
paragraphs and shown with the same maps in both master plans. The highlights of this
section are:
e Lansing is a fairly flat city that is affected more by floodplains than grade
changes
0 The Grand River, the Red Cedar River, and the Sycamore Creek afford much
waterfront for park development along with sizable lake properties around the
city
0 There are 3 contaminated sites in park lands. These are the Barb Dean Tot

Lot, Paulson, and Crego Park “rage 1.26, 2000-2005 Master Plan).

(2) Description of Community Administrative Structure
This section includes the operating budget, organizational chart, standard

operation procedures, commission or advisory board, relationship(s) with other agencies,

72

and staff description. The operating budget for the PRD is divided into four areas: the
General fund, the Potter Park Zoo fund, the Cemetery firnd, and the Golf fund (see
Appendix B). Budgets for the neighborhood parks come from the General fund. The
monies for this fund come from grants (both Federal and State), the State of Michigan
Equity Funds, minor trust funds, land sales, donations, tax dollars, and a special parks
millage for renovations and development of park facilities.

The organizational chart (see Figure 11) shows that the PRD reports directly to
the Mayor and then to the City Council. It has the Parks Board as an advisory body and
the Director of the PRD supervises three specific divisions: Administrative, Potter Park
Zoo, and Golf / Washington Ice. It is the Administrative division that is in charge of park
design and research. The deputy director supervises the Field Services, Business
Management, and Leisure Services divisions. The ground and landscape maintenance of

all neighborhood parks is conducted by the Field Services Division.

73

IlA—(Du NUJJE

lily—>04
wig SUM >:§T|J uguwzzx a «Ur—33¢ llama
Ruptuu ugh; xuiu¥|i Mwu_>¢wm 29h¢u¢uum z—uuku Kuhn:

was; won—Daiuuzshil, “puma“ UF—ui: MUUpZUU >C§vau

 

 

 

z n )uxu 4u>¢¢
uéungC

muuzcm

xpg maqu: Spud:
vat; pzoauuu>_

N <U¢<J

>2~5uuw 52; x3
993$

Q22.— mu2>uuM 95M”: T

 

 

Ta: can \ 2222.. 29353. “3253

 

 

T 5:5. 0&3.

 

 

Mg
v )uuo 4U><¢h
MJUNU «2mm

ghuaapwtuk
#2:: \ 1.53.5 >uUhUfiu
than mad: 2.54:."
)m m )uuu 15)::
UM _ )u¢U 4u><Mh

~ (US

_
ugzufiz?! ua<UMQZ<J d «3855
4¢>nfum \ Eu.—
x\a 02:54au
>a—wuxo.‘

_ ZOE—>3 muu_>aum gnu: TL
a

 

 

Sh gum—a >253

 

— 5:553 a 3%.. .a Spouse

_

Erin—tuna .- 9.85. no hzukacaun

-i-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ g>(t —
T 38228 CC I
T 02523 b :5 _

 

  

222).: mu. SKI—1M5; \ 5.50

 

wuu_>uwm P2830“;
uu2<2u_—z_<x TZJ—uc
“EH—(auto autumn

   

ZOE—>3 8N \ v55. «uh—bu

Zo:¢u»w_z_ra( mmuza:
flung—mu.-

»ZHtuodsx mmuéman .- mu:
Iufldumum .- ZOEHQ xmc.

 

ZOE—>3 ZD:<a»w_z_za<

 

    
 

  

 

Figure 11 - Parks and Recreation Organizational Chart. Page 2-18, 2000-2005 Master

Plan.

74

The standard operational procedures (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department,
2000) for the PDR are stated clearly in the Park Land Policy passed by the City Council
in 1979, which states that the PDR will deal with four specific areas concerning parks:
(1) acquisition, (2) development, (3) encroachment, and (4) disposal. Under acquisition,
it states that the PDR, along with the Parks Board, the Planning Board, the Board of
Education, and interested citizen groups may prepare a report to be submitted to City
Council for consideration in the budget allocation procedures. The development section
places PRD squarely responsible for the development and maintenance of a Park
Development Capital Improvement Plan. This plan will be submitted through the
Planning Board to the Mayor for budget considerations. The encroachment provision
assigns PRD the responsibility of preserving and defending park lands from
encroachment by public or private uses. The last area, Disposal, is a bit more detailed,
since it deals with the possible transfer of lands to other city departments and lands
unsuitable for park development. The main goal of this provision is that any sale or
transfer of lands should occur with the purpose of improving the park system and not be
used to benefit private interests.

The PRD’s relationship with other agencies and boards is fairly extensive. There
are over twenty different boards, commissions, and citizen groups that advise the PRD on
various issues such as historical preservation, river front property cleanups and
acquisitions, and softball sport programs. The PRD is staffed by full time and part-time
employees, seasonal laborers, part-time contract employees, and hundreds of volunteers.
In 1992, an early retirement program was offered to city employees. Since then, City

Council has been reluctant to add new staff.

75

(3) Description of the Planning Process

Three specific requests are made by the DNR in this section. The first one is a
discussion of the plan development process, followed by the description of the key
persons involved in the process, and finally the description of the public involvement
process used in the development of the plan. This final section contains an overall
description of the public input process and a description of the methods used.

The planning process for the 1995-2000 master plan lasted nine months and was
implemented by a consultant. The 2000-2005 master planning process lasted a whole
year and was done internally by staff. The same general steps were taken in both plans
(see Figure 12). The base information gathered from the 1995-2000 plan was

incorporated into the 2000-2005 plan.

76

 

 

 

PRD Staff
Input

Community Input

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

Committees
Focus Groups
Workshops

 

 

 

Opinion
Survey

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

Top Five Park
Priorities Board

 

 

 

 

 

ii

 

Draft

 

Mission Statement
Goals and Objectives
List of needs & projects

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

Public

 

Service

 

 

 

Police

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Adjacent
Hearings . County
(Planning Board) Recreation
(Park Board) Departments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

Tri-County
Review

 

 

 

1

Final Draft

 

 

 

 

V

 

 

City Council
Adopts Master Plan

 

 

 

Figure 12 - Flowchart of the Planning Process to create the Parks and Recreation Master

Plan.

77

 

The staff of PRD was instrumental in giving feedback regarding the current state

of parks and their needs. For the 2000-2005 master plan, the staff developed a checklist

to help identify deficiencies and needs of parks. Community involvement was sought in

the form of 18 or more committees, focus groups, and workshops that were chaired by a

staff person and were made up of solicited members of the staff and the community that

had knowledge, interest, and desire to participate (see Table 3).

Table 3 - Committees and Focus Groups from both the 1995-2000 and 2000-2005

Master Plans

 

Committees for 1995-2000 master plan

Focus groups for 2000-2005 master plan

 

Athletics

Handicapper Concern
Downtown Coalition
Community Centers

Special Events

Oak Park Complex

Street & Public Trees
Lansing Municipal Cemeteries
Potter Park & Zoo
Neighborhood Park Programs
Scott Art & Garden Center
Riverfi'ont Development

City Wide Infrastructure
Regional Recreation Issues
Old Town District

 

 

‘mge 2.4). (age 3.4).
Cultural Arts and Historical Access
Lansing Municipal Golf Operations Aquatics
Natural Areas Athletic Facilities (Park/School) and
Senior Citizen Programs Programs

Cemeteries (Lansing Municipal)
Community Centers and Senior Citizens
Cultural Arts and Historical

Downtown Parks

Forestry (Street & Parks)

Golf Operations (Lansing Municipal)
Infrastructure (Parks & Recreation System)
Natural Areas

Neighborhood and City Wide Parks
Neighborhood Park Programs

Oak Park Maintenance Complex

Potter Park and Zoo

Regional Recreation Issues

Scott Art & Garden

Washington Park Ice Skating Complex

 

The goal of these groups was to come up with the top five priorities, which were

then made part of the master plan as supporting documents. An additional method of

public involvement included an opinion survey done by the Neighborhood Park

78

 

committee that was sent to members of that committee and other interested citizens (see

Table 4).

Table 4 - Park Survey

 

uestions and Summary of Neighborhood Park Committee - 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Number of Top 3 answers (number of
Respondents respondents)

What city park(s) do you use? 93 Frances Park (19), Potter Park
(10), Riverfront (6). All three are
city wide parks.

What are the three most critical 72 Security/Safety (19),

problems with neighborhood Maintenance/General Upkeep

parks? (13D, Facilities (11)

What new playground equipment 85 None (8), Frances needs

or support amenities (restrooms, restrooms, needs more easily

drinking fountains, bike racks, accessible w/better lighting (4), 3

etc.) do you see as a need and in other parks = 2 restrooms and l

which park? bike path (2 each). All other
answers were specific to one park
and one item.

What new programs do you think 55 None (8), tennis lessons, help

we need on our city parks? increase use of courts (3), and ice
skating, nature programming and
more free activities (2 each).

Do you feel safe in a city park? 36 Yes (20), Daytime only (before

6:00pm (9), Not always (6)

 

This survey in 2000 was opened to the public through publication in the local

paper (Lansing State Journal). For the 1995-2000 master plan, a newspaper article was

published that encouraged people to write in their opinions on the existing park system

and what they would like to see in the future five years. Table 4 represents the results of

this survey by summarizing the general responses given to the 5 questions. At the end of

the questionnaire, the survey asked for affiliation or name - this list only shows 26 total

participants. This means that multiple responses were allowed for each question. Of all

the participants, only 6 were not affiliated with some neighborhood group, community

79

 

center, or business. For question 1, out of the 93 responses, only 9 said they used
neighborhood parks. The rest used either city-wide or community parks. This response
makes question 2 (what are the most critical problems with neighborhood parks)
somewhat suspect and less meaningful since only 9 responses to question 1 said that they
use these parks out of a total of 72 responses given for question 2. Responses to question
3 (what new facilities, equipment or support amenities do you see as a need) mentioned
only 2 neighborhood parks: McKinch and the 119th Armory park. As a tool to inform
the policy process, this survey does not seem to have gathered much information about
neighborhood parks.

Once these surveys were compiled and the top five priorities were established, the
Park Board (or the consultant in 1990) created a draft of the proposed mission statement,
goals and objectives, and lists of needs and projects. Once this draft was available, it was
opened for public review through various venues: the Park Board held public hearings,
four complete drafts were available at the community centers throughout the city (Gier,
Foster, and Kingsley), and the Planning Board and City Council held public hearings as
well. For the 2000-2005 draft, feedback was also sought from the Tri-County Regional
Planning Commission, adjacent county recreation departments, and other Lansing
agencies such as police, planning, and public service. During the final City Council
meeting, the Draft Master Plan was discussed and a vote taken to adopt it (with
modifications).

This process is critical in the inclusion of underserved populations. The master
plan recognizes that the population has changed, but the participation of underserved

populations is suspect in the process. Committees, focus groups, newspaper surveys, and

80

public hearings where public input is sought, generally do not effectively reach the
underserved populations in policy discussions. The literature supports this and
acknowledges that upper-status citizens make up a high percentage of the people in
public policy participation groups. This “status” definition includes higher education,
higher income, and greater social power (Alford, 1975). Another study found that lower
income groups were more distrustful of local community groups and political institutions
than higher income groups (Docherty, 2001).

In an effort to include minority and poverty populations, a focus group
specifically formed to address the concerns and ways of reaching these growing
populations could be helpful. As stated in one study, “Different methods are necessary to
reach different citizen groups” (Wilson, 1975). This study mentioned newer methods
such as citizen juries, Visioning, and public panels as other possible methods of involving
different types of populations in the public policy process. Based on the 2000 census, 30
percent of Lansing’s population is either Black or Hispanic, and almost 17 percent are
living below the poverty level. This is a significant group that doesn’t seem to be well

represented in this information gathering process.

(4) Recreation Inventory

In this part of the plan, four sections are required. The first one is a description
and/or inventory of the recreational opportunities located within the community’s
political boundaries that include public lands, schools, and private properties and/or
facilities. The second section requires the description and/or inventory of the recreational

opportunities outside the community’s political boundary. The third section requires

81

maps showing the location of facilities, and the last section requires a description of the
community’s barrier-free compliance status. This latter section demands (1) the
evaluation of physical accessibility of existing facilities and programs, (2) the completion
of a transition plan to address the identified accessibility issues, (3) the implementation of
methods to address barrier-free issues in the design the planning of new facilities and
programs, and lastly, (4) the addressing of the accessibility issues at existing facilities.
This section is almost identical in both master plans. The 2000-2005 shows an
increase of 10.05 park acres for a total of 1765.19, and some of the lists containing
recreational programs have been updated. The 2000-2005 master plan contains one
added section that fulfills the barrier-free requirement by DNR. The maps required in
this section are presented in Appendix C of this dissertation and include (1) public parks
and recreation map — page 4.2, (2) Community and Senior Centers — page 4.13, (3)
School / Park Combinations — page 4.16, (4) City Owned Golf Courses and Cemeteries —
page 4.17, (5) Natural & Historical Sites and Museum -- page 4.18, and (6) Regional

Composite of Recreational Lands — page 4.33.

(5) Action Program, Capital Improvement Schedule and Rational
The three sections mentioned in the title of this section are required by the DNR
in the master plan. The capital improvement schedule must include estimated costs (by
action and/or project and total by year), the years that the actions will be undertaken, the
funding sources, and maps showing the locations of proposed actions and/or projects.
Both the 1995-2000 and the 2000-2005 park master plan for the City of Lansing

has the following list of specific goals.

82

. Promote and enhance the financial stability of the Lansing Parks by

generating funding through a variety of sources.

Maintain, assess, develop, and preserve the park lands and facilities to provide
for needs of present and future generations.

Promote the development of new recreation programs with active sports
facilities and passive leisure opportunities which are in high demand, or are
innovative, unique or not presently provided by municipalities or private
sectors.

Promote interaction, involvement, and communications between the Parks and
Recreation Department, the citizens of Lansing and surrounding communities

(Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, 2000).

It is these goals that drive the development of the master plan and establish the priorities

for the items requested and links them to the greater purpose of fulfilling the mission of

the PRD. The second and fourth goals speak closest to the needs of the population.

Within the second goal there are 5 underlying objectives. These are:

l.

2.

To provide systematic and effective maintenance

To routinely assess park lands for acquisition/expansion, disposal and/or
leasing

To continue with efforts of meeting accessibility requirements

To encourage the preservation of Lansing’s natural systems/ features, cultural
elements, historic attractions and education interpretation opportunities

To continue physical development projects currently underway and new

innovative projects in the future.

83

The second of these 5 objectives, addresses the issue of park acquisition and
development. The master plan states that this objective will be met by studying “specific
demographic trends that may correspond to the generation of recreation services within a
geographical target area” (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, 1995, 2000).
Although Lansing’s demographics have been changing since the 19705, the only
populations that are mentioned to receive special attention in the 2000-2005 master plan
are seniors and persons with disabilities. No mention was found of accommodating the
needs of the existing minority or impoverished populations.

The fourth goal of the master plan, which deals with promoting interaction,
involvement, and communication between the PRD, the citizens of Lansing, and the
surrounding communities, contains five objectives:

1. To develop partnerships/coalitions with community groups and educational

institutions and churches

2. To implement quality management principles at all levels

3. To acknowledge the importance of public input and contact with community

leaders

4. To improve the public image and marketing efforts of the parks system

5. To develop shared visions for regional possibilities and to implement regional

solutions when feasible.
The first and third objectives address public input. None of the 5 sections of the first
objective mention anything concerning the input of minorities or underserved
populations. Although some churches may have minorities and poverty populations

participate and thus possibly get their needs voiced, there is no indication if such groups

84

did meet with the parks and recreation staff, and no one from a church was listed as a
focus group participant. The only section that may have covered input fi'om minority and
poverty populations is number four that states that the PRD will “continue to work with
the Lansing Neighborhood Council in developing a communication network to identify
and meet specific park and recreation needs, such as Neighborhood in Bloom, the Adopt-
A-Park Program, and other neighborhood projects and programs” (Lansing Parks and
Recreation Department, 2000). Under the third objective, only the first section addresses
public input, but it is not specific as to the method nor the populations addressed. It
states that the PRD will “establish a simple, yet logical communication system between
the users/public, their group leaders/coaches and the city’s staff/supervisors” (Lansing
Parks and Recreation Department, 2000).

In the 1995-2000 plan, of all the items that made it into the Capital Improvements
Needs list, only 6 of them dealt with neighborhood parks. They were (1) play equipment,
(2) pavement repairs to neighborhood parks, (3) repair and maintenance of miscellaneous
small projects, (4) Oak Park land acquisition to the west, (5) tennis court fence repair, and
(6) a request for replacement of the picnic shelter at Reasoner Park. In the 2000-2005
master plan, the Capital Improvements Schedule for grant projects does not show a single
item related to neighborhood parks, but the City Capital Improvements Schedule shows
the following neighborhood parks expenses: basketball court repairs, concrete repairs,
park paving, playground equipment, and repair and maintenance.

Both the 1995-2000 and the 2000-2005 plan show that the only new asset added
to the neighborhood parks were playgrounds. Resources spent on maintenance and

repairs are bundled together in such a way that it is not possible to assess how much was

85

spent on each individual neighborhood park. Appendix B shows the general budget for

the PRD and the Capital Improvement Schedule for all the City Departments.

Conclusion

This chapter illustrated the current population trends in Lansing and attempted to
give a broad view of the park system, and its master plans. It showed that Lansing’s
population is changing and that this trend leads to a more racially and ethnically diverse
population. It also shows that a large percent of the population (almost 17 percent) is
living below the poverty line. The review of the master plan was found that there was a

lack of emphasis placed on Lansing’s changing demographics.

86

CHAPTER 5 - METHODS

Introduction

Lansing neighborhood parks and their assets are being used to assess the
outcomes of Lansing’s Park and Recreation master plans in relationship to minority and
poverty populations. To do this, this study set out to test the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Minority and poverty populations are under represented in the area

encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood parks (400 meters).

Hypothesis 2: Fewer resources have been allocated to parks located in the areas

encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood parks (400 meters) where greater

than average minority and poverty populations live.

This chapter will define neighborhood parks and the study variables, the sources
of data and the procedures used in testing these two hypotheses. The first hypothesis will
require the use of geographic information system (GIS) and statistical analysis to obtain
its results, while hypothesis 2 will also require some use of GIS and statistics, but will
include a more phenomenological and qualitative analysis of both the 1995-2000 and the
2000-2005 master plans, expenditures, and assets to reach a conclusion. Following the
procedures, there is a section on methodology justifications and literature review of

relevant studies.

87

Neighborhood Parks and Study Variables
Lansing began systematically building its park system after the 1922 master plan
was put in place. This master plan recommended having neighborhood parks for
recreation, large parks that have generous tracts of native scenery, and small open spaces,
triangles, and squares to soften and modify the city (Bartholomew, 1922). Today,
Lansing classifies its parks into 3 different categories; city-wide, community, and
neighborhood parks. In the 2000-2005 master plan, the definition of these parks (as
defined by their consultants in the 1995 park study) was based on size, equipment,
facilities, and location. These parameters are unknown to the current park staff (based on
staff email), but the general description of these parks according to the master plan is as
follows. City-Wide parks are those that are intended to serve all the people in Lansing.
All Community parks were defined to have an influence radius of 3A of a mile and the
Neighborhood parks definition states that these parks will serve residents living within
1/3 mile radius (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, 2000). The descriptions
given by the park staff vary from this and are as follows:
1. City-Wide Parks: The user base encompasses all of the city or regional area
surrounding the park. A good example of this is Potter Park Zoo.
2. Community Parks: These parks have a larger radii of users (1 mile +/-), a user
base that is from more than just the surrounding neighborhood, yet it's not a
large enough of a draw to attract users from the entire city. These parks may
have all the uses found in a neighborhood park, may have parking, may have

restrooms, etc., (a community center would be a good example for this

category).

88

3. Neighborhood Parks: The user base for these parks is mainly the surrounding
neighborhood (1/4 mile radius). The typical uses are playgrounds, basketball
courts, some picnic tables, maybe a drinking fountain, maybe some benches,

but no parking or restrooms.

Because this study is interested in the population groups found within the 5
minute walk catchment area (400 meters or approximately '/4 mile) of parks, and because
neighborhood parks influence their immediate surroundings, only parks identified as
Neighborhood parks were selected for this study (see Figure 13). Along with this, the
catchment area of 1/4 mile will be used. This distance represents a 5 minute walk (about
400 meters) and is recommended by the literature as a good guideline for population
accessibility to these restorative open spaces (Kollin, 2003).

Lansing currently has 106 parks, 60 of which are classified as neighborhood
parks. The list of neighborhood parks used in this study came from the 2000-2005 Park
and Recreation Master Plan (see Table 5). There were 2 parks deleted from the overall
2000-2005 list due to changing land use classification (Genesee Park) and redevelopment
(Washington Mall Park) compared to the 1995-2000 Master Plan. Genesse Park was the

only one being classified as a neighborhood park.

89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Neighborhood Park
Lansing City Limits
Roads

Figure 13 — Lansing’s Neighborhood Parks based on 2000-2005 Master Plan

90

Table 5 - LansingNeighborhood Parks and Their Acreaggs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ACREAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ACREAGE
119TH ARMORY 4.3 KIMBERLY PARK 21.2
AVERILL PARK 8.0 LARCH PARK 1.8
BARB DEAN TOT LOT 2.6 LEWTON PARK 1.7
BASSETT PARK 3.9 LYONS PARK 5.5
BECK PARK 8.9 MARSCOT PARK 9.7
BLUEBELL PARK 5.6 MCKINCH PARK 34.5
CAESAR DONORA PARK 3.4 MUNN PARK 18.2
CLIFFORD PARK 7.5 OAK PARK 18.8
DUNNEBACKE PARK 4.9 ORMOND PARK 17.5
EDMORE PARK 0.4 OSBORN PARK 1.0
ELMHURST PARK 6.2 PORTER PARK 10.7
FAIRVIEW 7.8 POXSON PARK 19.2
FERRIS PARK 8.0 REASONER PARK 7.3
FiLLEY PARK 3.0 REGENT PARK 8.8
FOREST VIEW PARK 12.4 REOLA PARK 2.8
FOSTER PARK 4.9 RIVERSIDE PARK 9.7
GEORGETOWN PARK 9.7 SEVENTH PARK 2.4
GLEN EDEN PARK 7.0 STABLER PARK 1.5
GRAVES PARK 13.1 STROUD PARK 3.0
GREENCROFT PARK 4.1 SUNSET HILLS PARK 0.9
HILLBORN PARK 8.0 TAMMANY PARK 2.1
HILLSDALE PARK 1.4 TECUMSEH PARK 68.5
HOLLY PARK 5.0 TRAGER PARK 1.3
HORSEBROOK PARK 7.0 TURNER MINI PARK 0.5
HULL COURT PARK 1.6 WAINWRIGHT 4.6
INGHAM PARK 13.3 WALDO PARK 0.7
IRVING PARK 0.4 WALSH PARK 5.0
JONES LAKE PARK 2.4 WILLOUGHBY PARK 41.5
KALAMAZOO PLAZA 1.3 WILSON PARK 5.2
KAYNORTH PARK 6.3 WOODCREEK PARK 4.8
TOTAL 503
AVERAGE 8.4
MEDIAN 5.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PRD does not have a set criterion for neighborhood parks, their sizes or their
assets, but their goals for neighborhood parks are to provide regular routine maintenance,
new playgrounds in any parks that service a young population, recreation sport facilities

for causal users, picnicking facilities, trails and open space for social gatherings and

91

preservation of natural features. To help with this, “Program Play” was initiated in 1994
in cooperation with the Lansing school district to place play structures in parks and
schools (Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, 2000).

Of the 60 neighborhood parks, 29 of them are five acres or less in size and three
are over 30 acres. The average neighborhood park is 8 acres in size and the median park
area is 5.1 acres (see Figure 14). Based on this information, parks will be analyzed in
two categories: parks that are five acres or less and parks that are greater than five acres.
These two categories will be useful to compare what size of park serves what type of
population. The recommended size for a neighborhood park is 15 acres (Lancaster,
1983). Since Lansing’s neighborhood parks are much smaller, it will be useful to know

what populations are being served by the smaller parks versus the larger parks.

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
. " i
. ' I :1/
' ' - “b
1 ‘ l/'
‘ 4*: A
7" I "v‘\r_
T // ‘. r
g I
' I
I
- I
I
--
I

 

 

U
d N Highways 81 Major Roads
Neighborhood Parks
[“‘1 5 Acres or Less
Q Over 5 Acres

E Lansing

Figure 14 — Lansing’s Neighborhood Parks by Size

93

These neighborhood parks have a variety of assets that serve the surrounding
residents. In the 60 neighborhood parks, the following assets can be found: park
benches, playgrounds, drinking fountains, grills, picnic tables, picnic areas, picnic
shelters, ball diamonds, basketball courts, tennis courts, soccer fields, volleyball courts,
natural hiking trails (dirt or woodchip surface), natural walks (paved or boardwalk
surface), cross country trails, sledding hills, and boat launch areas. A summary of the
assets found in the various neighborhood parks is given in Table 6. The top 5 assets are
playgrounds, basketball courts, ball diamonds, picnic areas, and tennis courts. Looking at
the total assets found in these parks, the average number of assets is 5 and the median is
4. For this study, assets will be divided into 2 groups; parks having less than 4 assets and
those having 4 or more assets. This division selects 31 parks in the four or more

category.

94

Table 6 — Number of Neighborhood Park Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assets Number of Parks
Benches 93
Playgrounds 47
Basketball Courts 35
Ball Diamonds 25
Picnic Areas 14
Tennis Courts 11
Picnic Tables 10
Grills 8
Picnic Shelters 7
Natural Walks 8
Drinking Fountains 6
Other (includes soccer (1), volley ball (2), hiking (1), 7
cross-country (1), and sledding (2)
Total 271
Average 5
Median 4

 

 

Since the number of assets that a park contains has been correlated to greater park
use, this study will quantify the assets in the neighborhood parks. This will be done in

two ways: first, the overall number of assets will be measured and then the approximate

dollar value of those assets will be calculated. This dollar value represents the

expenditures made by the PRD and will be the metric used to determine whether

underserved populations are being equally served. Table 7 shows the values used to

95

 

arrive at the assets expenditures. These costs were verified with PRD staff and represent
current day replacement costs. Natural features like trees and acreage were not included
in this determination. Although these are very important elements of expenditure and
worth, quantifying them was beyond the scope of this study. Only built elements that
have a direct impact on recreation were used. Table 8 lists all the neighborhood parks

and shows the number of assets and their replacement cost.

96

Table 7 - Asset Value Based on Estimates from Park Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assets Cost per Asset
Bench $1,850
Playground $35,000
Basketball Court $20,000
Ball Diamond $3,000
Picnic Area $2,000
Tennis Court $45,000
Picnic Table $1,200
Grill $1,000
Picnic Shelter $50,000
Nature Walk (dirt or woodchip path) $1,000
Drinking Fountain $2,500
Soccer Field $3,000
Volleyball Court $2,500
Cross-Country Skiing $3,000
Hiking (on paved or boardwalk surface) $150,000
Sledding Hill $5,000

 

 

 

Table 8 - Parks, Assets, and Total Asset Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS NUMBER OF ASSETS ASSETS COST IN DOLLARS
119TH ARMORY 4 59,850
AVERILL PARK 2 38,000
BARB DEAN TOT LOT 5 42,350
BASSETT PARK 5 61,700

 

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BECK PARK 3 38,700
BLUEBELL PARK 5 60,550
CAESAR DONORA PARK 1 35,000
CLIFFORD PARK 6 107,350
DUNNEBACKE PARK 6 135,700
EDMORE PARK 3 205,000
ELMHURST PARK 4 103,000
FAIRVIEW 9 164,800
FERRIS PARK 6 63,050
FILLEY PARK 5 60,700
FOREST VIEW PARK 17 213,450
FOSTER PARK 14 75,550
GEORGETOWN PARK 12 166,750
GLEN EDEN PARK 0 0

GRAVES PARK 7 63,700
GREENCROFT PARK 0 0

HILLBORN PARK 8 67,250
HILLSDALE PARK 3 38,700
HOLLY PARK 2 36,850
HORSEBROOK PARK 5 61,700
HULL COURT PARK 2 55,000
INGHAM PARK 7 67,200
IRVING PARK 0 0

JONES LAKE PARK 2 185,000
KALAMAZOO PLAZA 10 161,700
KAYNORTH PARK 3 38,700
KIMBERLY PARK 1 0

LARCH PARK 0 0

LEWTON PARK 1 35,000
LYONS PARK 3 100,000
MARSCOT PARK 8 92,900
MCKINCH PARK 3 58,000
MUNN PARK 3 172,000
OAK PARK 5 62,000
ORMOND PARK 2 23,000
OSBORN PARK 2 38,000
PORTER PARK 3 58,000
POXSON PARK 5 61,700
REASONER PARK 10 162,400
REGENT PARK 3 39,350
REOLA PARK 2 55,000
RIVERSIDE PARK 2 185,000
SEVENTH PARK 4 60,000
STABLER PARK 4 58,700

 

 

 

\O
00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STROUD PARK 1 20,000
SUNSET HILLS PARK 0 0
TAMMANY PARK 4 58,700
TECUMSEH PARK 12 310,850
TRAGER PARK 3 152,850
TURNER MINI PARK 6 9,950
WAINWRIGHT 3 58,000
WALDO PARK 4 58,700
WALSH PARK 8 1 15,400
WILLOUGHBY PARK 0 0
WILSON PARK 8 158,700
WOODCREEK PARK 8 110,550
TOTAL 271 54,722,050
AVERAGE 5 $79,288
MEDIAN 4 $59,925

 

 

 

 

Because budget information for these parks is not available in a format that allows
individual park analysis, this insight will be extrapolated from the assets that were
installed. For the dollar expenditure variable based on those assets, the average was
$79,288 and the median was $59,925. The 2 categories for this variable will be parks
with assets worth over $60,000 considered to have a high expenditure, and parks that
have a dollar amount less than this will be put in the category of low expenditure. This
selects 31 parks in the high expenditure category.

Available reports also showed the date that the assets were installed (Table 9).
These data may be used to reflect the priorities given to parks by their installation date.
The most complete record relates to playgrounds and is recent enough to be addressed by
both the 1995-2000 and the 2000-2005 master plans. Thirteen parks have no
playgrounds, and 2 playgrounds had no installation date. Therefore we have data on 45

parks

99

Table 9 - Number of’ Playgrounds in Nei hborhood Parks and the Dates Installed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Playgrounds Dates installed
29 Before 2000

16 2000 and After
(13) None

Total = 45

 

 

 

100

Data Sources

Park Data

The park data used in this study come from three different sources. The outline
and spatial information for each park comes fiom the City of Lansing’s planning
department and was acquired in GIS format. The individual park data comes from the
City of Lansing’s PRD and their consultants. These data include the acreage of parks,
classification, budget expenditures, and park assets and were compiled in 2003. The park
assets data were then compared and updated from a database created and field checked in
2004 by a researcher at Michigan State University (Dr. Sarah Nichols). Park acreage,
number of assets, estimated asset values, and date of asset installation will be used to help
determine whether minority and impoverished populations are receiving a similar share

of these public resources.

City Data

Data for the City of Lansing came from various sources. The land use coverage
that was used to select the residential areas in the city was obtained from the Tri-County
Regional Planning Commission. These data were useful in taking the generic census
block or census block group areas and removing all land uses that were not residential.
With this remaining area, a true population density measure is possible. The roads,
railroads, and rivers came from the Michigan Center for Geographic Information. The
roads selected had four or more lanes. The pedestrian overpass information came from
the City of Lansing’s Engineering Department and was used to adjust the catchment area

to reflect pedestrian access where a four-lane road can be traversed by pedestrians. The

101

last piece of city data acquired was the overall outline of the city that came from the
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Geographic Network database. All of

the data used was set to the Michigan Georef, NAD 83 projection.

Demoggaphic Data

The main source of demographic data for this study is the US, Census Bureau.
They produce data covering a very broad spectrum of demographic information that
comes in different scales, with different measures associated with each scale. The
smallest geographic unit available is the census block and this is the most appropriate
scale of data created by the Census Bureau for neighborhood studies (Liu, 2001). Census
blocks contain only broad demographic data such as race and ethnicity. The advantage of
using census block information is that there are clearly defined boundaries and thus,
comparisons over time are possible (these boundaries will be obtained from the ESRI
Geographic Network Database). Also, the relative homogenous units in population
numbers of each of the census blocks and the fact that smaller units have fewer chances
of aggregation errors makes this data source relatively stable with an even distribution
and is, therefore, appropriate for this use. The next geographic level of data is the census
block group, which contains the aggregate data of various census blocks.

One of the disadvantages of the census block data is that all available information
gathered by the census bureau is not available at this scale due to confidentiality
concerns. To include income information both the census block and census block group
data will be used, but an error will be introduced since data at the census block group

level is more generalized than the data at the census block level. The block group

102

information used in this study is population by race, ethnicity, and income (See Table
10). This will be done for the 1990 and the 2000 census. Poverty data is reported for the
previous year of the census and thus the 1989 and 1999 data will be used.

Table 10 - Census Data Used in This Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Scale Year Range
Income Census block group 1989, 1999 Above Poverty and
Below Poverty
Race and Ethnicity Census block group 1990 Whites, Blacks, and
Census block 2000 Hispanics

 

The census differentiates between race and ethnicity. This means that the
Hispanic population may contain Black and White populations, but the White and Black
counts are for “one race only.” Both the 1990 and the 2000 census data will be used to

get a better understanding for the population shift that is currently happening in Lansing.

Access Mums

Since this study is looking at the relationship between parks and population
demographics, the issue of access to these parks is being specifically investigated. This
research takes into account environmental constraints that affect access to the park by the
surrounding population. This process requires two separate steps. First, park catchment
areas will be created that include a ‘/4 mile area surrounding the parks. Then, these areas
will be modified to reflect the physical barriers that may impact this catchment area, such
as highways and railroads that are effective barriers to pedestrians. This study used road
classification to determine which roads served as barriers. Roads classified as collectors
with four or more lanes were considered barriers. Highways, railroad lines, and

waterways are also included as barriers. The resulting coverage will show actual areas

103

that have pedestrian access to parks and that are no more than a 1/4 mile away (or a 5-
minute walk). Tests for statistical significance and correlation will be done between the
population characteristics found in the catchment areas and the quantitative values found

within each of the parks. Table 11 shows the variables that were used in this study.

Table 11 - Study Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Catgories

Income Above Poverty, Below Poverty @989, 1999)

Race and Ethnicity Whites, Blacks, Hispanics (1990, 2000)

Park size Over 5 Acres, 5 Acres or Less

Park assets High Number (4 or more), Low Number (less than 4)

Asset value High Expenditure ($60,000 or more), Low Expenditure
(less than $60,000)

Park access Area within V4 mile (400 meters) and not bisected by a
barrier

Asset installation date Before 2000, 2000 and After, None

Barriers Roads (greater than 4 lanes), water ways, railroads,
highways

Procedures

In order to test the study’s hypotheses, the following procedures were followed:
1. Gather data from the ESRI web site (www.csri.com) for both Ingharn county
and Eaton county. These data contain the outlines of the census blocks and
census block group polygons.
a. 1990 Census block group polygons
b. 2000 Census block polygons
c. 2000 Census block group polygons
2. Gather data from the Census web site (www.ceraaus.org).

a. 1999 Census block group poverty information — SF3 — P87

104

b. 2000 Census block race information — SF 1 — P7
c. 1989 Census block group poverty information — SF3 — P117
(1. 1990 Census block group race information — SF 1 — P7
. Join the census databases with the appropriate block or block group polygon
files.
. Clip all files to cover an area a little greater than Lansing to reduce file size.
. Calculate the acreage of these polygons. Verify that the projection is set to
Michigan GeoRef : NAD83.
. Using the Land use coverage fi'om Tri-County Regional Planning, select only
the residential uses. Save this as a new coverage. Dissolve all these tiny
polygons together to speed up processing.
. Clip the Census coverage with the Land use coverage. This removes the areas
that are not residential from the study.
. The polygons in the Census coverage will contain the population numbers, but
since polygons have been clipped to remove non-residential areas, these
polygons will need to be measured and the population numbers will need to be
modified based on the percentage of land area. Save this as the final
population coverage. The steps below show how to accomplish step 8.

a. Rename the acres field to old acres. When doing this, make sure to

create this field using 3 decimal places.
b. Recalculate the acres field for the Census coverage.
0. Add all the new acres information found in the database that originally

made up the old census area (in Excel, identify all the acres that share

105

the same id number and add them together). This is the new total
acres value.

. Take new acres field and multiply it by 100. Then, divide this number
by the new total acre value from step 8c of each polygon. This equals

the percent of each polygon to the total clipped census block area.

. Multiply the percent times the total number of people from the census

database. This equals the new total of people per census area. Note
that this number is greater than if you just added the Whites, Blacks
and Hispanics because other population groups are not shown.
Multiply the percent by the total of each of the demographic variables.
For example, Whites times percent equals a new variable labeled “new
total white per census.”

. Multiply the new demographic variable from step 8f and divide this by
the new acres calculated in step 8b. This results in the density value of
that polygon for that demographic variable .

. Determine the density for the total population and total poverty
population using the procedure in 8g.

Append this information to the polygon files. To do this you must
convert the Excel spreadsheet with formulas into a spreadsheet that
only has values. Use the paste special “values only” option. Save this
as a text delimited file. Saving the file first as a comma delimited file
seems to reduce errors. Once the file is in a text format, use the “Join”

command to append the information to the appropriate polygon file.

106

9. The new coverage now contains only residential areas with population

densities.

_.
O

. Get the neighborhood park coverage from the city and append the database

containing the park asset numbers, asset values, and asset installation dates.

pun
p—d

. Using the neighborhood park coverage, create a 400 meter buffer to determine
the park catchment study area (See Figure 15).
12. Create a barrier coverage that includes the roads (4 lanes or more), the

waterways, highways, and railroads.

_.
Lo)

. Using the park catchment areas coverage (fi'om step 1 1), remove areas that are
bisected by barriers. Save this as the final study area. The easiest way of

doing this was through the use of MicroStation as a CAD engine (see Figure

16).

 

Barriers — Roads of 4 Lanes or more
Neighborhood Park

a 400 Meter Buffer Area

 

Figure 15 — 400 Meter Buffer Area

107

Barriers — Roads of 4 Lanes or more
Neighborhood Park

400 Meter Buffer Area Clipped by

Barriers

 

 

\ #-

 

 

 

Figure 16 — 400 Meter Buffer Area Clipped by Barriers

14. Using the final modified catchment area coverage, intersect it with the final
population coverage. This will create new clipped polygons. Re-calculate the
area of each polygon and, using the established density, get an exact count of
each population variable. Also, calculate the percentage of the total
population since Lansing’s percentages are used to determine if the values in

the database exceed the typical city statistics (see Figure 17).

108

 

[:1

Barriers — Roads of 4 Lanes or more
Neighborhood Park

400 Meter Buffer Area Clipped by
Barriers and Non-Residential
Land Uses

Figure 17 — 400 Meter Buffer Area Clipped by Barriers and Non-Residential Land Uses

15. Analyze the population counts using basic statistical correlation tests and T-

Test for significance. The hypotheses are evaluated based on the following

matrices (Tables 12-14).

 

 

kble 12 - Matrix for Hypothesis 1
Variable Over-Representation of Over-Representation of
Whites and Above Poverty Blacks, Hispanics, and
Populations Below Poverty Populations
Within the Catchment Area Hypothesis 1 = true Hypothesis 1 = false
Equity distribution does not Equity distribution does
follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning

 

 

 

 

 

109

Table 13 - Matrix for Hypothesis 2

 

Variables

Over-Representation of

Over-Representation of

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whites and Above Poverty Blacks, Hispanics, and
Populations Below Poverty Populations
Asset Value above city— Hypothesis 2 = true Hypothesis 2 = false
wide average Equity distribution does not Equity distribution does
follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning
High Number of Parks with Equity distribution does not Equity distribution does
High Expenditure follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning
High Number of Parks with Equity distribution does not Equity distribution does
High Number of Assets follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning
(supports Hypothesis 2)

 

Table 14 - Matrix for Policy Implications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Over-Representation of Over-Representation of
Whites and Above Poverty Blacks, Hispanics, and
Populations Below Poverty Populations
Playground Acquisition Equity distribution is ???
Time — None undefined
Playground Acquisition Equity distribution does not Equity distribution does
Time — Before 2000 follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning
Playground Acquisition Equity distribution does Equity distribution does not
Time -— 2000 and After follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning
Large Size of Park Equity distribution does not Equity distribution does
(supports Hypothesis 2) follow Advocacy planning follow Advocacy planning

 

Methodology Justification

In environmental justice studies, the most common form of analysis is the use of

census block groups being analyzed in relationship to a specific land use (Liu, 2001).

This study follows the same general procedure, but increases the accuracy of the analysis.

Since the census blocks and block groups cover the entire city, land uses that are non-

residential such as industrial, open space, and commercial, are counted in the population

density calculations. This study removed these non-residential land uses from the

analysis by subtracting them from the census coverage. This means that the remaining

110

 

 

areas must be adjusted individually for each census block group affected. This is done by
calculating the acreage of the remaining pieces (sometimes land use subtraction breaks up
census blocks into more than two pieces) and using the proportion of the new overall
size, new population densities are assigned. This allows later analyses to use the overall
acreage, and quickly calculate the population within the remaining area. This
methodology does not appear anywhere in the literature. It is more time consuming and
may be impractical in studies that cover large tracts, like the city of Detroit. Lansing,
because it is of a manageable size, allows for this more accurate analysis.

Once the numbers have been calculated for each group and for each specific
variable, the use of a T-Test is generally done and it is considered more powerfirl than
other tests, such as the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Liu, 2001). It does require the
assumptions that the distributions are normal and that the population standard deviation is
unknown. This test is done to find whether the various numbers for each group are
statistically significantly different from one another. Other basic correlation statistics and

summaries will also be done to describe the results.

Conclusions

This chapter gave a detailed description of the neighborhood parks and their
assets, the data used in this research, and the procedures that were followed. The
neighborhood parks were found to be smaller on average than the nationally
recommended size, but the park density calculation shows Lansing to have an above

average score compared to the nation’s largest cities.

lll

The variables defined in this chapter included race, ethnicity, income,
neighborhood parks, park size, assets, and catchment areas of these parks. For race and
ethnicity, the variables are Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. For income, the level
determining the categories was poverty and the two variables are Above Poverty level
and Below Poverty level. Neighborhood parks were selected from the overall park
system giving this research 60 units of study, and the park size, assets, and asset values
were determined. The park size limit used was five acres and this leaves 32 parks Over
Five Acres, and 28 parks Five Acres or Less. The assets found in these parks were
quantified in three different ways. First, parks having four or more assets were
considered to be in the High Number asset group (31 parks) and the remaining parks
having less than four assets (29 parks) were in the Low Number asset group. For the
second asset variable, the dollar value used as a benchmark was $60,000 and this left 31
parks in the High Expenditure category vs. 29 parks in the Low Expenditure category.
The third asset variable is based on date of playground installation. The variables were:
Before 2000, 2000 and After, and None. Also discussed was the catchment variable that

was determined to be ‘/4 mile buffer zone (400 meters for analysis).

112

CHAPTER 6 - DATA ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The first part of this chapter is organized around each of the two hypotheses. The
data related to each hypothesis are described and analyzed and then final conclusions are
drawn. The last section in this chapter looks at all the variables collected in relationship
to each of the population groups, both as individual groups and as a mixed category. This
evaluation and analysis is done to look for policy implications of the Lansing’s Park and

Recreation Master Plan.

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis of this study states that minorities and povertv 00mm
are under-represented in the area encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood parks
(400 meters). The minorities in this study were Blacks and Hispanics and they were
compared to the White majority population. The poverty population was determined
from the census data of individuals living below the poverty line. The measure of under-
representation was determined by using the city wide percentages for these populations.
If the percentage of people was found to be lower than the city-wide average, then under-
representation was said to occur. The area encompassing a 5 minute walk to the parks is
referred to in this study as the catchment area. Only the populations living within the
catchment areas were considered in this study. This hypothesis was tested for both the

1990 and 2000 census. Such time studies help to clarify patterns in population changes.

113

Once both sets of data (1990 and 2000) were established, they were compared

against the city’s population percentages to verify whether minorities and poverty

populations are being under- or over-represented within the catchment areas. The overall

results are laid out in Table 15 showing the total population numbers for each study

group found within all the catchment areas, the percentage that this number represents for

the overall catchment population, and how it compares to the overall city-wide

population percentages.

Table 15 - Results of Population Percentaggs Within Catchment Areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Population Total Percent of Overall Under or Over

Groups Population Population City-wide Representation
within all within all Percentages of Population in
catchment catchment all catchment

areas areas areas

1990 overall total 58145 100

for Whites,

Blacks, and

Hispanics

1990 Whites 43774 75.3 73.9 Over

1990 Blacks 10249 17.6 18.6 Under

1990 Hispanic 4346 7.5 7.9 Under

1989 overall 57591 100

Population

1989 Below 9810 17.0 19.2 Under

Poverty

1989 Above 47780 83.0 80.8 Over

Poverty

2000 overall total 82480 100

for Whites,

Blacks, and

Hispanics

2000 Whites 55700 67.5 65.3 Over

2000 Blacks 14590 17.7 21.9 Under

2000 Hisganics 7108 8.6 10.0 Under

1999 overall 50810 100

Population

1999 Below 7871 15.5 16.9 Under

Poverty

1999 Above 42939 84.5 83.1 Over

Poverty

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

The data in this table reveal a large difference between the overall population
numbers (total counts) within all catchment areas in the 1990 and the 2000 data sets.
This difference in population numbers may be due to the difference in scale of the data
sets. The 1990 population information came from census block group data which is
larger in size than the census block data used for the 2000 population information.
Having the larger size population measurement area may have averaged the population
numbers across this larger area resulting in more diluted density numbers. In the 1989
and 1999 data sets used to look at poverty, the numbers are closer to the 1990 than the
2000 census data set. Again, this poverty population information came from census
block group data instead of the census block data that is smaller in measurement area.

These data also reveal that Whites and Above Poverty populations were over-
represented (compared to the overall-city wide population distribution) in both the 1990
and the 2000 data sets. All other study groups (Blacks, Hispanics, and Below Poverty
populations) were under-represented. Although, the difference between the percentage of
population within the catchment area and the overall city-wide percentages were small in
some cases, the changes between the decades for Blacks and Hispanics do not show a
positive trend. In 1990 the proportional representation of Black in the catchment areas
differed only by 0.973 from the city-wide percentage. By 2000, the difference in Black
proportional representation went up to 4.2 in a negative direction (see Table 16). This
trend shows a greater under-representation in 2000 compared to 1990. For Hispanics, the
difference went from 0.425 to 1.382. This change was not as great as Blacks, but it again

shows a greater proportional under representation in 2000 than in 1990.

115

Table 16 shows the percentages of each of the study groups within the catchment
areas, the overall city-wide population percentages, the percent difference between the
city-wide numbers and the 1990 and 2000 population groups, and what the percentage
change represents. This final column (percentage of change) shows what percentage of
over- or under-representation occurred. For example, if the percentage of the White
population within the catchment areas is 75.283 and the city—wide percentage is 73.9,
then the 1.383 percent difference is above the city-wide percentage. This can be
calculated as a percentage of the overall city-wide percentage and is represented as
101.87 percent. This shows how much more above the city-wide average (in percent) the

White population is within the catchment area.

116

Table 16 - Population Percent Difference and Index in Catchment Areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Population Percent of Overall City- Percent Index

Population wide Difference

Within All Percentages

Catchment

Areas
1990 Whites 75.283 73.9 1.383 101.87
1990 Blacks 17.627 18.6 -0.973 94.77
1990 Hispanic 7.475 7.9 -0.425 94.60
1989 Below 17.035 19.2 —2.165 88.72
Poverty
1989 Above 82.965 80.8 2.165 102.68
Poverty
2000 Whites 67.532 65.3 2.232 103.42
2000 Blacks 17.690 21.9 -4.21 80.78
2000 Hispanics 8.618 10.0 --1 .382 86.18
1999 Below 15.491 16.9 -1.409 91.66
Poverty
1999 Above 84.509 83.1 1.409 101.70
Poverty

 

 

 

 

 

From this table one can determine that the percent of change of the White

population within the 5 minute walk area surrounding parks increased between 1990 and

2000. Although the percent of the population within all catchment areas for Whites

decreased fi'om 75.283 to 67.532, the respective city-wide percentages also decreased.

Taking this decrease into consideration, the overall White proportional representation

within the catchment areas actually increased from 101.87 percent to 103.42 percent.

The opposite is shown for both the Black and Hispanic populations. The trend shows that

under-representation within the catchment area between the 1990 and the 2000 data is

increasing. The Below Poverty group is the only group that shows a decrease in the

117

 

proportional under-representation (from 2.165 to 1.409) within the catchment area, while
the Above Poverty groups show the same exact decrease in over-representation. Figure
18 maps these trends, which are made up of the difference between city-wide population
percentages and the catchment areas population percentages. Poverty Population results
(1989 and 1999) are being reported within the same charts and figures as the other

populations (1990 and 2000) for ease of representation and comparison.

 

Index of Proportional Representation Within Catchment Areas of
Neighborhood Parks

Percent

 

 

 

 

Figure 18 — Index of Proportional Representation Within Catchment Areas of
Neighborhood Parks Between 1990 and 2000

Although both the Black and Hispanic groups are increasing in proportional
under-representation within the catchment area, the change in rate is quite different for
both of these groups. The data shows that although Blacks in 1990 were not as heavily
under-represented within the catchment areas of neighborhood parks compared to the
Below Poverty group, in 2000, Blacks are the most heavily under-represented group, and

if trends continue, they may become significantly underserved as a population by

118

neighborhood parks. Of the four population groups studied, Whites and the Below
Poverty group, had their respective numbers increase in the catchment areas. Where
Whites increased in proportional over-representation between 1990 and 2000 (1.383 to
2.232), the Below Poverty under-representation improved from -2.165 to -1.409.

To get a better picture of the over and under-representation of populations in these
neighborhood parks, Figures 19 through 26 were created to show each of the
neighborhood parks color-coded based on whether they under-represent or over-represent
each study population. The poverty map shows if the parks catchment areas contain

more than city-wide percentages of above and below poverty.

     

Rivers
Railroads
' :1 Under-represented

I ’1‘ ‘ g I Over-represented
"" ’ Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 19 — White Representation — 1990.

119

     

Rivers
1 Railroads
V ' E Under-represented

I ;. " " K ’7' Over-represented
, ' Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 20 — White Representation — 2000.

‘./-'"‘

   

Rivers
”' N Railroads
” 1:] Under-represented

2 -.-' ’ Over-represented
Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 21 - Black Representation — 1990.

120

Rivers
Railroads
Under-represented

-
If .. g Over-represented

  
  

Major Roads
Catchment Areas

 
 

- Rivers
~ N Railroads

, 7:? [:3 Under-represented
Over-represented
E: 2 Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 23 — Hispanic Representation — 1990.

  
    

 

“ 1. . ' L /\/ Railroads
“\ ) ’ ' _ f . * " C] Under-represented
, T / )1 It)
) i’ Over-represented
’ Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 24 — Hispanic Representation — 2000.

i N Railroads
[:] Above Poverty

* 2.. .1 ‘1 Below Poverty
Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 25 — Poverty Level in Park Catchment Areas— 1989.

122

 

g - I , / , . \v \ ' \ _ ,1 l,
8/ , ’ , 4; V ‘ . ”A. NRailroads
— . ~ 1) r, 3;?“ , [:1 Above Poverty

L;- ' Below Poverty
Major Roads
Catchment Areas

Figure 26 - Poverty Level in Park Catchment Areas— 1999.

These maps show the specific neighborhood parks, the catchment areas and if the
populations were under- or over-represented within the catchment area for both the years
1990 and 2000. From the methodology section, (Table 12) the matrix used to test this
hypothesis states that if over-representation of Whites and Above Poverty populations
was found within the catchment area, then hypothesis 1 was considered true. It also
states that if hypothesis 1 is true, then the definition of equity found is not advocacy.
This means that the planning efforts do not show results that would imply that the needs

of the disadvantaged were being advocated.

123

Hypothesis 1 - Conclusions

The confirmation of hypothesis 1 is not surprising since Black, Hispanics and
Poverty populations have been found to be underserved in many park studies and other
social programs. What is surprising about these results is the increase of representation
of both the White population group and the Below Poverty group within the catchment
areas. These groups have both shown a decrease in the overall city-wide averages
between these decades and the fact that they are continuing to increase is surprising since
this is in direct contrast to the existing trend in Lansing’s overall population. That
catchment areas show an increase in these groups does not follow this trend. Figure 27
shows the changes in the study population city-wide percentages between these decades,
and it shows exactly the reverse of what the population representation trends are in the

catchment areas.

124

 

City-Wide Percentages of Study Populations

90

so

70

60

so .1990
I2000

8

City-wide Population Percentages
8 8

_|
o

 

0

White Black Hispanic Below Powrty‘ Above Poverty
'Note: Below Powrty figures are for 1989 and 1999 respectively

 

 

 

Figure 27 — City-Wide Percentages of Study Populations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Proportional Representation Within Catchment Areas
of Neighborhood Parks
120 «——.————- —‘—7 —~——
101.9 103.4 1&7 ~ '
100 ,H 94.8 94.6 1%?“
86.2 88.7 91.1
eon
80 — f
E l i MES
o 60 __ _
t . mg
n.
40 «-
20 sr—q
0 ’—" r
Whites Blacks Hispanics Below Poverty Above Poverty
Study Population

 

 

 

Figure 28 — Percentage of Proportional Representation Within Catchment Areas of
Neighborhood Parks.

125

The trend that is most disturbing is the increasing under-representation of both the
Black and Hispanic populations. Both groups were about 95 percent represented in 1990,
but in 2000, this changed to almost 81 percent for Blacks and about 86 percent for
Hispanics (see Figure 28). This increasing gap shows these populations are receiving less
access to neighborhood parks and this inequity needs to be addressed.

Understanding why the trend reversals between the overall population percent
changes and catchment area representation percentages exist will be very important for
policy changes to effectively address the under-representation problem found in the
underprivileged populations. The population location model described in Chapter 3
mentions issues such as housing costs and peoples’ preference of public goods that
determine where they live. Knowing that this is true regardless of race shows a need to
get more information, specifically about Lansing’s population and planning policy, to
begin reversing the trend of increasing proportional under-representation of Black,
Hispanics and Below Poverty population groups. Because the Below Poverty population
group can include all the other three population groups, and because it came from a much
coarser data set, greater error in these data is inherent and this complicates the results and

may need more verification as well.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 proposes that fewer resources have been illocated to pa_r_ks locat_e_c_l
in the areas encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood parks (400 meters) where
greater than average minority and povertv populations live. The resource variable used to

test this hypothesis was based on the value of the assets found in the parks. The 5 minute

126

walk area is the same catchment area surrounding neighborhood parks used for
hypothesis 1, where both barriers and non-residential land uses were extracted. The
average minority and poverty populations were also defined as in hypothesis 1 and were
Blacks, Hispanics, and individuals living below the poverty line.

To test this hypothesis, the data gathered from hypothesis 1 was used. In
hypothesis 1, the population was analysed and mapped to show what parks and what
percentages of each population were found in the catchment areas. Figures 17-24 depict
the parks, their catchment areas and the under- or over-representation of each of the study
populations. With this information, Figure 29 was created to show the number of parks

that have a greater than city-wide percent average for the study populations.

 

Number of Parks With Greater Than Average Population
Representation

8888

8

-I
0|

Number of Parks

 

Whites Blacks Hispanics Below Poverty Above Poverty

 

 

 

Figure 29 — Number of Parks with Catchment Areas That Have Greater Than Average
Population Representation.

127

In 1990, there were 36 parks that had a greater than average White majority
within the 5 minute catchment area surrounding them. Of the other populations in this
study, the data shows that Blacks are more heavily under-represented in more park
catchment areas than Hispanics or the Below Poverty population group. This is of
concern because the difference between the overall percentage of the population made up
by Blacks is much larger (18.6 in 1990 and 21.9 in 2000) than the Hispanic population
(7.9 in 1990 and 10 in 2000) and similar to that of the Below Poverty population (19.2 in
1990 and 16.9 in 2000), yet they are not similarly represented in the number of parks that
serve these populations.

Once the parks that serve higher than average Blacks, Hispanics and Below
Poverty population groups were identified, the data for them were tabulated and
compared to White and Above Poverty populations. Table 17 shows the average value of
the assets found in the parks by population type. The Asset Value variable was obtained
by assigning a replacement dollar value to each of the assets found in the park. The
“Black and Hispanic (Mixed)” category means that both Black and Hispanic groups were
over-represented in the catchment area in relationship to the average city-wide percentage
and that Whites may also have been over-represented in this category. The “Only Black
or Hispanic” category shows the parks that do not have any White populations above
average city-wide percentage and have either the Black or Hispanic population at the
above city-wide percentage levels. The “White (Mixed)” category means that Blacks or
Hispanics could have also been present at an above average population representation.
Only one park (Graves Park) in the 2000 data set did not serve either the White, Black or

Hispanic population at the above the city-wide percentage level.

128

Table 17 - 1990 and 2000 Average Asset Value by Race and Ethnicity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Black and Only Black Only Whites
Average Hispanic or Hispanic Whites (Mixed)
Asset (Mixed)
Value
($78,701)
Parks 60 34 24 26 36
1990 Average $74,432 $54,560 $84,282.69 $94,794
Asset Value
Percent of 94.6 69.3 107.1 120.5
Overall Park
Average
Parks 37 25 22 34
2000 Average $73,393 $67,184 $88,309.09 $87,610
Asset Value
Percent of 93.3 85.4 112.2 111.3
Overall Park
Asset Average

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17 shows that on average, parks that have either Black and/or Hispanic
populations (either in combination or individually) have average asset values (resources)
lower than the overall city wide average, and even lower than the average asset values
found in parks that serve Whites. In both 1990 and 2000, the average neighborhood park
that had Whites over—represented in their catchment areas had assets of higher value
($94,794 in 1990 and $87,610 in 2000) than those parks that had the Black and Hispanic
populations over-represented.

Exploring this discrepancy further, the following four tables show the variables in
this study that are related to the assets found in parks. These variables will be used to test
hypothesis 2 as shown in the matrix in the methodology section (Table 13). These
variables are High and Low Expenditure, and High and Low Number of Assets. The
Expenditure variable was set to High if the total replacement value of all the assets found

in the park added up to $60,000 or more, or Low, if it was below this figure. The

129

 

Number of Assets variable was set to High if all the assets added up to 4 or greater. This
variable was set to Low if the number of assets was below 4. These data were tabulated

by each specific population group to see whether differences between the study groups

emerged.

Table 18 - 1990 Park Asset Information by Race and Ethnicity

 

City Wide 1990 Black 1990 Only 1990 Only 1990

 

and Black or Whites Whites
Hispanic Hispanic (Mixed)
(Mixed)

Parks 60 34 9 26 36

 

Average $78,701 $74,432 $54,560 $84,283 $94,794
Asset Value

 

High 3 1 18 10 l 3 21
Expenditure

 

Low 29 16 14 13 15
Expenditure

 

Parks with 31 22 14 9 16
High of
Assets

 

 

Parks with 29 12 10 17 20
Low of
Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The data in Table 18 shows that the least amount of resources ($54,560) were
found in parks that have a proportional over-representation of either Blacks or Hispanics.
If Whites were also over-represented with Black and Hispanics, the average asset value
went up to $74,432. Both of these figures are below the city—wide average of $78,701.
Above this city-wide average figure are the two White Only and White Mixed categories.
The High/Low Expenditure data correlates fairly well to the Asset Value variable. The
Black or Hispanic Only group that has the lowest Asset Value also has proportionally

fewer parks with High Expenditure and more parks with Low Expenditure. On the other

130

end of the scale, the White (Mixed) group that has the highest Asset Value, has
proportionally a larger number of parks (21) with High Expenditure and fewer parks (15)
with Low Expenditure. Looking at the Number of Assets variable, there seems to be a
reverse correlation with the Asset Value variable. The Black and Hispanic population
groups have a greater proportional number of parks with High Number of Assets (22
High and 12 Low for one group and 14 High and 10 Low for the other), yet these groups

show the Average Asset Value to be the lowest in Table 18.

Table 19 - 2000 Park Asset Information by Race and Ethnicity

 

City Wide 2000 Black 2000 Only 2000 Only 2000

 

and Black and Whites Whites
Hispanic Hispanic (Mixed)
(Mixed)

Parks 60 39 25 22 34

 

Average $78,701 $71,010 $67,184 $88,309.09 $87,610
Asset Value

 

High 3 1 19 13 l l 1 7
Expenditure

 

Low 29 20 12 1 l 1 7
Expenditure

 

Parks with 31 23 16 9 14
High of
Assets

 

 

Parks with 29 16 9 11 20
Low of
Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the 2000 data set, the trends for the Average Asset Values are the same as
they were for the 1990 population groups (Table 19). Blacks and Hispanics have Asset
Values below the city-wide average and Whites Only and Whites (Mixed) have Asset
Values above the city-wide average. In the High / Low Expenditure variable, all groups

show fairly even results. This means that the number of High Expenditure parks are the

131

same or almost the same as the Low Expenditure parks. Unlike the 1990 data, there is
little difference between population groups in the proportions for this variable. The
Number of Assets variable for this 2000 data set again follows the reverse trend seen in
the 1990 data. The Black and Hispanic populations with the lower Asset Values
($67,184 and $71,010) have a Higher number of Assets (23 and 16), while the Whites
Only and the Whites Mixed population groups with the higher Asset Values ($88309 and

$87,610) have a Lower number of Assets (16 and 9).

Table 20 - 1990 Park Asset Information by Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty

 

City 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990
Wide Whites Blacks Hispanics Below Above
Poverty Poverty

 

Parks 60 36 18 26 23 37

 

Average $78,701 $94,794 $65,500 $69,238 $50,198 $96,419
Asset Value

 

High 31 21 8 14 9 22
Expenditure

 

Low 29 15 10 12 14 15
Expenditure

 

Parks with 31 16 12 16 12 19
High of
Assets

 

 

Parks with 29 20 4 10 11 18
Low of
Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 20 shows the variables of Asset Value, Expenditure and Asset Number for each
specific population group in this study. The park count reflects parks with catchment
areas that have these populations groups with above average city representation
regardless of what other population they may also have above city-average
representation. The trend for the Asset Value variable shows that the Below Poverty

group has the lowest value ($50,198), followed by Blacks ($65,500), then Hispanics

132

($69,238), then Whites ($94,794) and finally Above Poverty ($96,419). The High/Low
Expenditure value seems to generally follow the Asset Value variable. The only
exception is the Hispanic group that has a greater number of parks with High Expenditure
values, yet in overall, it is one of the groups with a lower Asset Value. The Number of
Assets variable does not show a clear trend in either direction. There does not seem to be

any predictability with this variable.

Table 21 - 2000 Park Asset Information by Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Wide Whites Blacks Hispanics Below Above
Poverty Poverty
Parks 60 34 15 24 25 33
Average $78,701 $87,610 $76,777 $67,406 $60,990 $93,391
Asset Value
High 31 17 8 11 13 17
Expenditure
Low 29 17 7 13 12 16
Expenditure
Parks with 31 14 10 13 14 16
High of
Assets
Parks with 29 20 5 ll 11 17
Low of
Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 21 shows the 2000 information for the same categories found in Table 20.
The trends in Asset Value are almost the same as the 1990 data with one exception.
Instead of the order of Asset Values increasing beginning with Below Poverty, Black,
Hispanics, Whites, and ending with Above Poverty, in the 2000 data, the order is Below
Poverty, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, and again ending with Above Poverty. The Blacks
and Hispanics reversed order. The numbers in the High/Low Expenditure variable were

again shown to have little variation in the values. The Number of Assetts variable

133

showed again a reverse trend with groups of high Asset Value data having a higher
number of parks with a low number of assets. This holds true for the White and Above

Average groups, and the reverse is true for the Blacks, Hispanic and Below Poverty

groups.

Hypothesis 2 — Conclusions

Tables 17-21 supply the information for hypothesis testing to occur based on the
matrix established in the methodology section. Table 13 established that hypothesis 2 is
supported if the Asset Value for Whites and Above Poverty populations is above city-
wide average. Hypothesis 2 would be unsupported if Blacks, Hispanics and Below
Poverty populations had parks with asset values above the city-wide average. Since this
latter statement is not supported by the data, hypothesis 2 is supported.

The parks with catchment areas that have higher than city-wide average
percentages of Blacks, Hispanics and Below Poverty populations have assets of less
worth than parks with catchment areas with higher than city-wide averages of both the
White and the Above Poverty populations. In looking at the data, the Below Poverty
group is over-represented in parks with lower Asset Value than any other population
studied. Also, the population group with the highest Asset Value over all the rest was the
Above Poverty group. From this information one may observe that socio-economic
status is more likely to be related to the level of expenditure found in parks. Although
Blacks and Hispanics also show a lower Asset Value than the majority Whites, the
poverty line that divides the population shows a greater gap in Asset Value than any other

variable (in 1990, $50,198 - $96,419 and in 2000, $60,990 - $93,391).

134

For the variables of High Expenditure and High Number of Assets, the results are
less clear. The relationship between “High Expenditure” and “High Number of Assets”
could not always predict a higher Asset Value. This was because in some instances a low
number of parks that have “High Expenditure” could have values that were very high and
thus could result in an overall dollar figure that was higher than a greater number of parks
that have “High Expenditure.” The same was true for “High Number of Assets.” The
number of assets was a poor predictor of resources spent since the assets varied so much
in value. These two variables were not very useful in measuring or predicting the Asset
Value of a park. Because these two variables are inconclusive, they neither truly support

or reject the equity distribution of Advocacy planning.

Policy Implications

Besides testing each of the above hypotheses, this dissertation set out to
understand the policy implications of Lansing’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. To do
this, other variables were studied to see whether there were visible correlations or
relationships that could be seen that would show the Park and Recreation Master Plan to
be based on advocacy planning and to see whether it was equitable from the Black,
Hispanic, and Below Poverty populations’ perspective. The matrix used to test this Table
14.

A discussion follows for each of the following variables: (1) “Average Year of
Playground”, which includes the playground installation dates of “None,” “Before 2000”
and “After 2000,” and (2) “Average Park Acre” including the number of “Large” and

“Small” parks.

135

( 1) Average Year of Playground

This variable was the only one that had current specific installation dates and it

was hoped that this information would show the priorities placed by the Lansing’s park

and recreation master plan in terms of the populations that they served. The average for

these installation dates was 1996 and this fit well within the study time frame. Table 22

shows both the years when playgrounds were installed and the three other categories that

this data was divided into: “None,” “Before 2000,” and “After 2000.” The percentage of

each of the categories was calculated based on the total number of parks that had that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

specific population group.
Table 22 - 1990 and 2000 Information on Plglgrounds
Average No Percent Play- Percent Play- Percent
Year of Play- ground ground
Play- ground Before After
ground (None) 2000 2000
City 1996 15 25.0% 29 48.3% 16 26.7%
Wide
1990 1996 9 26.5% 18 52.9% 7 20.6%
Black
and
Hispanic
(Mixed)
2000 1996 12 30.8% 19 48.7% 8 20.5%
Black
and
Hispanic
(Mixed)
1990 1997 8 33.3% 3 41.7% 6 25.0%
Only
Black or
Hispanic
2000 1997 8 32.0% 1 1 44.0% 6 24.0%
Only
Black or
Hispanic
1990 1995.9 6 23.1% 1 1 42.3% 9 34.6%
Only
Whites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

136

 

 

2000
Only
Whites

1995.9

13.6%

10

45.5%

40.9%

 

l 990
Whites
Mixed)

1 996

19.4%

19

52.8%

10

27.8%

 

2000
Whites
Mixed)

l 996

20.6%

17

50.0%

10

29.4%

 

1990
Blacks
(Mixed

1998

27.8%

44.4%

27.8%

 

2000
Blacks
(Mixed)

1998

33.3%

46.7%

20.0%

 

1 990
Hispanic
s (Mixed)

l 996

26.9%

14

53.8%

19.2%

 

2000
Hispanic
8 (Mixed)

l 996

29.2%

12

50.0%

20.8%

 

1990
Below
Poverty

1 996

30.4%

11

47.8%

21.7%

 

2000
Below
Poverty

1997

32.0%

12

48.0%

20.0%

 

1 990
Above
Poverty

1 996

21.6%

18

48.6%

11

29.7%

 

 

2000
Above
Poverty

 

l 996

 

 

18.2%

 

16

 

48.5%

 

11

 

33.3%

 

Looking at the data, there are a couple of patterns that can be extracted from this

table. All groups had a higher percentage of playgrounds installed Before 2000 than

After 2000. Whether this has significant meaning is not clear. Looking at the overall

data, 3 parks had playgrounds that were installed between 1970 and 1980. All the

remaining playgrounds have been installed beginning in 1994. No clear message is

decipherable from this information. Another pattern that seems to be much more

137

 

significant is that the Whites, White Only, and Above Poverty population groups are the
only population groups that have below city-wide percentage of parks that have no
playgrounds. This means that on average these three populations are clustered around
parks with playgrounds compared to Blacks, Hispanics, and the Below Poverty
population groups which have a greater percentage of clustering around parks without
playgrounds. This pattern does speak to the priorities of building playgrounds in parks

that have higher than average White and Above Poverty populations.

(2) Average Park Acre

This variable was used to see whether there was any relationship between park
size and the populations that live near either large or small parks. Large parks were
determined to be parks that were over 5 acres in size. Any park 5 acres or smaller was
placed in the Small Parks category. The population variables labeled “(Mixed)” mean
that other populations may also have above city-average population percentages that were
found when the target population was extracted. For example, if the target population
was Blacks, all the parks with catchment areas that show Blacks having above city-
average population percentages were selected. This group of parks may also have Whites
or Hispanics that may have above city-average population percentages. In the “Only”
categories, all parks selected for a target population are filtered for any other population
group that may have above city-wide average population percentages and then these

parks are deleted from the selection group. Table 23 summarizes the findings.

138

Table 23 - 1990 and 2000 Information on Average Park Acres and Park Size

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Average Park Number of Number of
of Parks Acres Large Parks Small Parks
City Wide 60 8.385 31 29
1990 Blacks and 34 10.751 20 14
Hispanics (Mixed)
2000 Black and 39 9.906 22 17
Hispanics (Mixed)
1990 Only Black 24 7.904 11 13
and Hispanics
2000 Only Blacks 25 7.507 13 11
and Hispanics
1990 Only Whites 26 5.29 11 15
2000 Only Whites 22 5.085 9 13
1990 Whites 36 8.706 20 16
Mixed)
2000 Whites 34 8.890 17 17
(Mixed)
1990 Blacks 18 5.641 7 11
(Mixed)
2000 Blacks 15 6 8 7
(Mixed)
1990 Hispanics 26 12 17 13
Mixed)
2000 Hispanics 24 12 14 10
(Mixed)
1990 Below 23 10 13 10
Poverty
1990 Above 37 7.5 18 19
Poverty
2000 Below 25 8 l4 9
Poverty
2000 Above 33 8.7 16 17
Poverty

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just like with the previous variables of High Expenditure and Number of Assets,
the number of “Large” or “Small” parks isn’t always related to the Average Park Acres
variable. For example, in Table 23 the data show that Blacks in 2000 have a higher

number of “Large” parks, yet their overall “Average Acres” is still below the city-wide

139

average. For all groups except the Poverty poluations (both Above and Below) all
“Average Acre” values remained on the same side of the city-wide average for both 1990
and the 2000 data sets. That means that if Whites had Average Acre values lower than
the city—wide average in 1990, then in 2000 they also showed a lower than city-wide
average value. The Above and Below Poverty groups were the only group to go from
having park acreage that was either above the city-wide average in 1990 to having park
acreage that was below the city-wide average in 2000 or vise versa. The Above Poverty
population went from 7.5 acres in 1990 to 8.7 acres in 2000. The Below Poverty
population went from 10 acres in 1990 to 8 acres in 2000. Exploring the makeup of both
groups (Above and Below Poverty) may clarify the reason for this. A possible
explanation is that there was an increase of either Whites or Blacks in that population
group between 1990 and 2000 and that would tend to reduce the “Average Acre” value
since it was found that these population groups are clustered around parks with lower
“Average Acre” values. A decrease in Hispanics could also cause a reduction in the
“Average Acre” value since this population group was found to cluster around parks with
higher “Average Acre” values.

To substantiate the previous statement, the data for “Whites Only,” “Blacks
(Mixed),” and “Only Black or Hispanics” populations show that these groups in general
have “Average Acre” values between 5 and 7.9 acres. This is below the city-wide
average value of 8.3 85 acres. For “Hispanics (Mixed),” these values are above this city-
wide average and have an average value of 12 acres.

Besides finding that Hispanics live near larger parks, the Acreage data seems less

usefirl than expected. Because both the White and the Black population groups seem to

140

live near smaller parks doesn’t point to either discrimination or policy implications that
would explain this data. The values shown for the variable “Large” or “Small” parks also
proved to be less informative than expected and inconclusive in helping to clarify the

equity definition being used.

Conclusions

The matrices that were set up to evaluate the data (Tables 10-12) attempted to
organize the findings in a way to show what equity distribution can be interpreted from
the outcomes of the Lansing’s park and recreation master plan policy. If the advocacy
planning distribution of equity was used, then one would expect that Blacks, Hispanics,
and Below Poverty populations would be at the same or higher levels than the city-wide
averages. This study found that this is not the case for all the variables analyzed. Below

are the matrices from the methodology chapter with the final findings inserted.

Table 24 — Matrix for Hypothesis 1 with Final Findings

 

Variable Over-representation of Over-representation of
Whites and Above Blacks, Hispanics, and
Poverty Populations Below Poverty
Populations

 

 

Within the Catchment Area Hypothesis 1 = true
Equity distribution does not
follow Advocacy planning

 

 

 

The data used to test hypothesis 1 (Minority and poverty populations are under-
represented in the area encompassingp 5 minute wa_11_( to neighborhood parks (400

meters) supports the conclusion that Blacks, Hispanics, and the Below Poverty

141

 

populations are under-represented in the catchment areas of neighborhood parks. Table

24 summarizes the findings that show this information.

Table 25 - Matrix for Hypothesis 2 with Final Findings

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Over-representation of Over-representation of
Whites and Above Blacks, Hispanics, and
Poverty Populations Below Poverty
Populations
Asset Value above city- Hypothesis 2 = true
wide average Equity distribution does not
follow Advocacy planning
High Number of Parks with Inconclusive Inconclusive
High Expenditure
High Number of Parks with Inconclusive Inconclusive
High Number of Assets
(supports Hypothesis 2)

 

 

 

Hypothesis 2 stated that fewer resources have been allocated to parks located in
the areas encompassing a 5 minute walk to neighborhood paika (400 meters) where
geater than average minority and povertv populations live. This hypothesis was
supported and shown in Tables 17-21. Whites and Above Poverty populations had above
city-wide averages for Asset Values found in the parks where they were over-
represented. In parks were Blacks, Hispanics and Below poverty populations were over-
represented, the Asset Value variable was below the city-wide average. These results
also support the statement that the equity distribution that describes these results is not
advocacy. The other two variables (High Number of Parks with High Expenditure and
High Number of Parks with High Number of Assets) were determined to be inconclusive.
The data did not support or deny whether Whites and Above Poverty populations
benefited from this or not. No inference could be made from the data in these variables

to determine what equity distribution was used.

142

 

Table 26 - Matrix for Policy Implications with Final Findings

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Over-representation of Over-representation of
Whites and Above Blacks, Hispanics, and
Poverty Populations Below Poverty
Populations
Playground Acquisition Equity distribution does not
Time — None follow Advocacy planninj
Playground Acquisition Inconclusive Inconclusive
Time — Before 2000
Playground Acquisition Inconclusive Inconclusive
Time — 2000 and After
Large Size of Park Inconclusive Inconclusive
(supports Hypothesis 2)

 

 

 

This final table (Table 26) only shows one of the four variables studied to be

conclusive. The Playground Acquisition Time - None refers to parks that have no

playgrounds. The study found that Whites and Above Poverty populations have fewer

parks without playgrounds than Blacks, Hispanics, and Below Poverty populations. The

other three variables (Playground Acquisition — Before 2000, Playground Acquisition —

After 2000, and Large Size of Park) were determined to be inconclusive. No real pattern

emerged and the data did not support or deny whether Whites and Above Poverty

populations benefited from this or not. The equity distribution could not be determined.

143

 

CHAPTER 7 — POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

This chapter is organized into four main sections. The first one discusses the
limits of the study. This is followed by a discussion regarding the variables used and
how well they worked. The third section deals with policy recommendations for
Lansing’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan and specifically addresses the inequities and
trends found in this study. The final section discusses future studies and gaps in the
literature that could help in further understanding some of the trends and results in this

dissertation.

Limits of Study

This study set out to answer two main specific hypothesis. Along the way,
decisions were made that limited the study to the current data and procedures that were
followed. The greatest limiting factor in this study was the available data. Since this
study looked at resources being spent on parks, the measurement of these resources was
critical to this study. No detailed budget for each park was available from the Parks and
Recreation Department and, therefore, using the existing assets in a park as a
measurement of resources became the way to quantify resources. This decision has many
inherent limitations. Only man-made items that had a replacement value were counted.
This leaves out many natural features and elements that cost resources and are valid

assets that have been left out of the study equation. For example, trees and ponds are

144

features that may or may not have cost the Parks and Recreation Department resources to
plant and build. Because some parks had naturally existing trees while others had trees
planted, it became difficult to know which trees should be counted. Not only that, but if
trees were counted, what value would they be given knowing that trees come in such
diverse types and sizes. Because of the difficulty in quantifying trees and natural
features, the natural assets were not included in this study.

Another decision regarding assets was the decision to quantify them with
replacement costs and not their actual value. Actual value became problematic in
determining the cost of each asset. Questions like how much value does a playground
structure lose in 2 years vs. 7 years became an issue. If an asset is in good shape after 10
years should it be counted the same as if that same 10 year-old asset was falling apart?
Condition and age change the value of assets. Because of the difficulty in assessing the
value of each asset, replacement costs were assigned and this may skew the results
somewhat since some of the structures may no longer be considered an asset due to their
condition.

The issue of the condition of an asset may be due to the amount of maintenance it
receives from the Parks and Recreation Department. Because no specific budgets exist
showing how much maintenance goes into each specific park, it was impossible to add
this as a variable. This is a real shortcoming of this study because maintenance does
make a difference in how much a park is used or not by its surrounding population.

Determining the makeup of the surrounding populations near neighborhood parks
was the main task of this dissertation. To do this, census data was used. This data source

comes with its own set of limitations. The two that need mentioning are population

145

undercounts and scale. The error of undercounts seems to be specifically inherent in
minority populations. This undercount is something to be aware of and to acknowledge
that the minority population counts may actually be greater than those reported. The
issue of scale was demonstrated in the population counts found in the catchment areas
where census block data showed more people (82,479.523 in 1990) than census block

group data (58,144.979 in 1990). This makes comparison between decades more suspect.

Variables

The variables used in this study were Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Above Poverty,
Below Poverty, park size, asset number, asset value, number of high or low expenditure
parks, and playground installation dates. All of these variables have some issue that
needs to be discussed. Beginning with Whites, this population group may include
Caucasian Hispanics. Having Black Hispanics in the population count is also true for
Blacks. Thus, the Hispanic group includes both Whites and Blacks in its count. This
causes some double counting of people in the calculations. The Poverty population is a
complete population set on its own and includes all populations found in the City of
Lansing. The Poverty variable selected was individuals. This variable could have been
selected based on age or family status.

The next set of variables that deal with parks relate to the size and assets found in
the parks. Park size was a variable that upon analysis yielded small amounts of data.
The only interesting measurement to come out of it was that, in general, the Hispanic
population was over-represented in the catchment areas of larger parks. Both the asset

number and number of high or low expenditure park variables were not found to be very

146

useful. It had been hoped that these variables would be able to help predict and clarify if
the outcomes of planning supported the advocacy theory, but this was not the case. There
was not clear direction from the analysis of both of these variables. Asset value and
playground installation dates were the two most informative variables in this study.

These two variables were able to support both hypotheses and corroborate that advocacy
planning is not being shown in the park planning outcomes.

On a general note regarding the use of park assets, studies have found that
expensive assets like basketball courts are used less often and by fewer people than assets
that support walking such as benches and natural paths. Also, higher resource allocation
to parks doesn’t necessarily translate into more usage of parks. Although one study
found that more assets have been correlated with more park use, our data has shown that
asset numbers are not good predictors of resource expenditures.

Further knowledge of how each of these points regarding assets and park
resources is necessary to guide policy decisions on how to best allocate the dwindling

park resources available to neighborhood parks.

Policy Recommendations

This study found both hypotheses to be corroborated by the available park and
population data. In addition, trends of increasing under representation of Blacks and
Hispanics shows a bias for addressing the needs of the White populations ahead of the
Black, Hispanic, and Below Poverty populations. One of the main goals of this

dissertation is to highlight areas where policy changes could be made if inequities were

147

found. Since these inequities were found in specific areas that were tested, policy
recommendations have been made.

The areas where inequities were found include (1) the below city-wide average
representation of Blacks, Hispanics and Below Poverty populations in the neighborhood
park catchment areas, (2) less than city-wide average asset values in parks that have an
over-representation of Black, Hispanic and Below Poverty populations, (3) Below
Poverty populations have parks that have the least amount of asset values, (4) Blacks
have the least number of parks where they were over-represented more than any other
population, (5) the installation of playgrounds generally occurred earlier in parks serving
Whites, and (6) less number of parks with no playgrounds were found for the White
population.

Addressing this under-representation of the underprivileged populations is a
complicated issue. Because these catchment areas were reduced in size by barriers, such
as 4 lane roads, increasing pedestrian overpasses would change the catchment areas.
That alone could make a significant difference in the makeup of the populations having
access to parks. Other factors such as housing, education, and cultural preferences may
have a much greater influence in why people live in certain locations. To better
understand the issue of under-representation and the needs of the Blacks, Hispanics, and
the Below Poverty populations, the park master plan process needs to specifically address
these populations. Currently, seniors are the only population that is being specifically
targeted in the master plan. This needs to be expanded to include Blacks, Hispanics and
especially the Below Poverty populations. Committees, like the one created for seniors,

need to be formed to insure that the master plan process considers the needs and wants of

148

these three population groups. The Below Poverty group needs special attention since it
was shown that this group had the parks with the lowest asset values of all the groups.

The resources issue becomes a matter of priorities. Priorities are formed and
arranged based on values and ethical stands. The planners’ stand, to help address the
issues of the underprivileged, is a guiding principle rooted in the advocacy theory that is
not being reflected in the data collected. More resources need to be spent on parks that
serve the underprivileged if the planners’ definition of equity distribution is to be based
on the advocacy theory. Determining the allocation and distribution of resources should
be done with direct guidance from these populations. Communication with these
population groups will need to be sought out and specifically planned for in ways that fit
the population characteristics and increases the potential for a positive exchange of
information. Research on how best to communicate and formulate these contacts needs
to be done to maximize the benefit to these underserved populations.

Blacks make up a large part of this underserved and underprivileged population.
They seem to be the population having less access to neighborhood parks. Because the
makeup of the underprivileged population contains different cultural needs and wants,
separate committees need to be formed to address each of the underprivileged
pepulations’ needs. Because Blacks usually experience greater discrimination and
currently have less access to neighborhood parks as compared to other populations, their
needs should be given greater priority until this trend is reversed. Hispanics were shown
to live nearer larger parks. Is this a cultural phenomenon? How can policy reflect this

preference?

149

The trend that shows the White population benefiting fi'om having their
playgrounds earlier than other populations and from having more parks with playgrounds
needs to be reversed. Diverting resources to correct this can be done by identifying the
parks that in their catchment area currently have a greater than average proportion of
Blacks, Hispanics and Below Poverty populations and currently have no playgrounds.
This solution may quickly correct the inequities in playgrounds. Nothing can be done
today to change the fact that the White population received their playgrounds earlier than
other populations, but this knowledge does point to past biases. When future initiatives
that will be done through out the entire neighborhood park system are put in place,
knowing that such a bias existed in the playground initiative should force a change in
policy. The prioritization of parks receiving the installation of assets should consider the
population that these parks have within their catchment areas and thus prioritize the parks
so that these underprivileged populations receive these assets. This recommendation
should not just occur at the local level, but at the State level as well. If the state mandates
that underprivileged populations’ needs be addressed in the park and recreation master
plan process, all cities, not just Lansing would be required to do this.

One final general policy suggestion comes to mind when reviewing this study.
Since it has been documented that parks have positive health, economic, and social
implications for the city’s populations, increasing this valuable resource may help to
reduce the current trend showing a decline in overall city population. According to the
National and Parks Association’s park criteria, 29 of the 60 neighborhood parks are
undersized. Prioritizing the budget to try to increase the size of these parks may help

reverse this population declining trend.

150

Future Studies

This section looks at the gaps of information found while doing this study and the
future studies that would help to better clarify and understand the results of this \/
dissertation. The study of parks, and its implications for the populations that they serve,
covers a wide range of issues that involve many fields of study. The psychology and
cultural needs of the population along with the ecological health of the urban city are just
two diverse points of view pertaining to neighborhood parks. Such diversity of fields
forces reliability on other professions to help understand the overall picture depicted in
the data collected and to better understand the results. It is at this juncture of planning
with fields such as sociology, anthropology, and health that some gaps in the literature
were encountered.

The first missing piece of information dealt with being able to determine
specifically whether people live longer or are healthier if they live closer to parks.
Currently, the literature leads you to this possible logical conclusion from studies that
show that the greater access to parks results in greater physical activity, which in turn
should lead to greater health. Nothing was found that verified the first statement and
having this piece of information would make a stronger case for investing in public parks.

Also missing in the literature is the correlation of naturally active people having a
preference to live near parks. This information is vital since it may just be a personal
preference that keeps these naturally active people healthy and therefore parks really are
just not having the health benefit that we currently assess to them.

Health benefits are just one of the many advantages of parks. This study

encountered three trends regarding parks and the populations within their catchment areas

151

that require more research to understand why not all populations have the same access to
parks and how this situation came to exist. These trends are (l) the increasing under-
representation of Blacks and Hispanics in park catchment areas, (2) the dramatic
difference in the rate of this under-representation trend between Blacks and Hispanics,
and (3) the trend showing Blacks being served by fewer parks than any other population
group.

Along with a better understanding of these trends, more studies need to be done
that help compare one city’s park policy and outcome to another, as well as suburban
park policy vs. urban park policy. For cities such as Lansing, no studies were done that
could help gage how well Lansing was doing regarding their park density in comparison
to other similar sized cities. Such comparisons are valuable and help with policy
formulation and justification. Along these same lines, the way in which one quantifies
the assets and makes comparisons needs further study. In this study only the man-made
elements that had a direct impact on recreation were used. Assets such as trees and
wetlands that also have an impact on recreation are much harder to quantify and compare.

Early in this dissertation the question came up as to “who are we fixing our parks
for?” This is another area that needs further study. By fixing and improving parks,
economic and social changes occur around the park and may actually force the
underprivileged away from parks due to the new economic burden of the rise of housing
values. This needs further study along with the type of policy that could protect the
underprivileged from being forced to lose access to the improved parks.

The relationship between the various underprivileged populations also calls for

more study. In this study, there was a strong correlation between the Black only

152

population and the Below Poverty. Understanding the makeup of the underprivileged
populations in each case study such as this one may help to explain some of the patterns
that were experienced here. Another pattern that was confusing was the one that showed
the increasing under-representation of both the Black and Hispanic groups, yet the Below
Poverty population actually improved. Along with that, is the interesting pattern showing
Whites only and Blacks (Mixed) groups having access to smaller parks while Hispanics
have access to larger parks. Is this a cultural phenomenon? What social theory might

explain this? Answers to these questions would help clarify the results to this study.

Conclusions

Parks and their benefits have long been studied by planners and other professions.
Policies that manage and distribute this public resource need to be evaluated for both
fairness and effectiveness. Studies that look at the uses, users, and their interaction will
benefit the city and its planners to best utilize this valuable public resource. Public
expenditures in public resources must be scrutinized for equitable distribution among all
populations. This research evaluated the City of Lansing’s Park and Recreation Master
Plans and found that there seems to be a beginning trend of disparity in this resource
distribution. Policy adjustments to prevent further disparity needs to occur to maintain a

fair and equitable distribution and expenditures in neighborhood parks.

153

References

Alford, R. a. R. F. (1975). Political paritcipation and public policy. Annual Review of
Sociology, I, 429-475.

Andrejevic, M. (1995, March 25). Parks spending on agenda. Lansing State Journal.

Anonymous. (2002). Why parks and recreation? Varied reasons, unified goals. Parks &
Recreation, 16.

Bartholomew, H. (1922). The lansing plan: A comprehensive city plan report for
lansing, michigan.Lansing: City of Lansing.

Bartholomew, H. a. A. (1938). A report upon the comprehensive city plan lensing,
michigan.Lansing: City of Lansing.

Beatley, T. (1994). Ethical land use: Principles of policy and planning.Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Benveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning.San Francisco: Jossey—Bass
Publishers.

Brooks, M. P. (2002). Planning theory for practitioners.Chicago: Planners Press.
Bureau, C. (2005). Lansing - arnerican fact finderzCensus Bureau.

Bureau, C. (2005). Poverty status. American Fact Finder database Retrieved
1028/2005, from
http://www.censusgov/acs/www/Products/Profi les/Single/ZOOZ/ACS/Narrative/3
80/NP38000US4040htm

 

Bureau, C. (2005). Table 23. Michigan - race and hispanic origin for selected large cities
and other places: Earliest census to 1990. Retrieved 10-22-05, 2005, from
http://www.ccnsus.gov/population/documcntation/twpsOO76/Mltab.xls

Bureau, C. (2006). Poverty definitions. Retrieved 1/27/06, 2006, from
http://www.censusgov/hhes/www/povertv/povdeflitm1

 

Bureau, U. C. (2006). American fact finder. Retrieved 4/24/06, 2006, from
http://factfindcr.ccnsus.gov/homc/saff/main.html? langen

Burgess, J ., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A
study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies,
25, 455-473.

Commission, C. P. (1954). Population: Facts and figures.Lansing, MI.

154

 

Dear, M., & Flusty, S. (1998). Postmodern urbanism. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 88(1), 50-72.

Delany, P. (1994). Vancouver: Representing the postmodern city:Arsenal Pulp Press.

Development, D. o. P. a. N. (2000). Consolidated strategy and plan submission: F ive-
year plan 2000-2005.Lansing, MI.

Docherty, I., Robina Goodlad and Ronan Paddison. (2001). Civic culture, community and
citizen participation in contrasting neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2225-
2250.

Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Aflairs Review, 35(4),
451-478.

Ferris, J., Norman, C., & Sempik, J. (2001). People, land and sustainability: Community
gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development. Social Policy &
Administration, 35(5), 559-568.

F rumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(3),
234-240.

Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2001). Black's law dictionary (Second Pocket Edition ed.): West
Group.

Garvin, A., & Berens, G. (1997). Urban parks and open space.Washington, D.C.: Urban
Land Institute.

Harnik, P. (2000). Inside city parks.Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Harnik, P. (2003). The excellent city park system.Washington, DC: The Trust for Public
Land.

Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Envimomental factors associated with adults
participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 22(3), 188-199.

Knox, P. (1991). The restless urban landscape: Economic and sociocultural change and
the transformation of metropolitan washington, d.C. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 8(1), 181-209.

Kollin, C. (2003). The face of the future. American Forests, 108(4), 7-10.

Lancaster, R. A. (1983). Recreation, park and open space standards and
guidelines.Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Land, T. T. f. P. (1995). Healing america‘s cities: How urban parks can make cities safe
and healthy. Children's Environment, 12(1), 65-70.

155

Land, T. T. f. P. (2001). Healing america's cities: How urban parks can make cities safe
and healthy.San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land.

Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, M. (1995). City of lansing, 1995-2000 parks
and recreation master plan. In P. a. Recreation (Ed.).Lansing: City of Lansing.

Lansing Parks and Recreation Department, M. (2000). City of lansing 2000-2005 parks
and recreation master p1an.City of Lansing.

Liu, F. (2001). Environmental justice analysis: Theories, methods, and
practice.Washington, D. C.: Lewis Publishers.

Maantay, J. (2002). Zoning law, health, and environmental justice: What's the
connection? The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(4), 572-593.

Mandel, C. (1998). Soothing the urban soul. Canadian Geographic, 118(4), 30-40.

Marshall, A. (2000). How cities work: Suburbs, sprawl, and the roads not taken.Austin:
University of Texas Press.

Mokdad, A. H., Marks, James 8., Stroup, Donna F ., Gerberding, Julie L. (2004). Actual
causes of death in the united states, 2000. JAMA, 291 (10), 1238-1245.

Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, Andrew J ., Payne, Laura L., Godbey, Geoffrey. (2004). The
interaction of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults.
Journal of Leisure Research, 36(2), 232-256.

Paffenbarger, R. S., Lee, I. (1996). Physical activity and fitness for health and longevity.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 6 7(3S), 1 1-28.

Page, 8., Nielsen, K., & Goodenough, R. (1994). Managing urban parks: User
perserctives and local leisure needs in the 1990s. The Service Industries Journal,
14(2), 216-226.

Pastor, M. J ., & Sadd, J. L. (2002). Who's minding the kids? Pollution, public schools,
and environmental justice in los angeles. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 263-
280.

Pastor, M. J ., Sadd, J. L., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority
move-in, and environmental justice. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(1), 1-21.

Pincetl, S., Wolch, John Wilson, and Travis Longcore. (2003). Towards a sustainable los
angeles: A 'nature's services' approach, Center for sustainable Cities (pp. 1-54).
University of Southern California: University of Southern California.

Planners, A. I. o. C. (1991, 1991). Aicp code of ethics and professional conduct. 2005,
from http://www.planningorg/ethics/conduct.html

156

 

Realtor, N. A. o. (2001). Nar survey shows public support for open space depends on use
and cost. Retrieved 12/12/05, 2005, fi'om
http://www.realtor.org/SGB.nsf/Pages/mngrtprcsssuweflOpenDocument

Recreation, C. C. I. f. t. C. o. L. s. D. o. P. a. (2003). Inventory of park, recreation,
waterfront and cemetery properties. In L.-r. f. 4-7-03.xls (Ed), Excel.Lansing.

Rosenau, P. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and
intrusions.New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Schulz, A. J ., Williams, D. R., & Lempert, L. B. (2002). Racial and spatial relations as
fundamental determinants of health in detroit. The Milbank Quarterly, 80(4), 677-
707.

Services, U. S. D. o. H. a. H. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the
surgeon general.Washington, D.C.

Shephard, R. (1994). Physical activity and reduction of health risks: How far are the
benefits independent of fat loss? Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,
34(1), 91-97.

Sherer, P. M. (2003). Why america needs more city parks and open space.San Francisco,
CA: The Trust for Public Land.

Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945.1.ondon: Sage Publications.

Thornton, D. W., & Weissert, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Urban policy choices for michigan
leaders.

Thwaites, K., Helleur, E., & I.M. Simkins. (2005). Restorative urban open space:
Exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfilment in urban open
space. Landscape Research, 30(4), 525-547.

Urlich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science, 224(4647), 420-421.

Wikipedia. Lansing, michigan.

Wilson, D. (1975). Exploring the limits of public participation in local government.
Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 429-479.

Woudstra, J ., & Fieldhouse, K. (Eds.). (2000). The regeneration of public parks.London:
The Garden History Society Landscape Design Trust
E 8t FN Spon.

Young, T. (1995). Modern urban parks. Geographical Review, 85(4), 535-551.

157

 

 

Appendix A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (pages 1.7 - 1.9).
CITY-WIDE BASELINE STATISTICS

The following is a synopsis of the Lansing City census data“ against which all the
data of the tracts and parks were compared:
1. POPULATION -— 5.2% more females than males

2. HOUSEHOLDS — median age 29.7

Married couples households 42.0%
Non-family households 37.9%
Single-parent households 20.1%

3. RACIAL MIX — whites/blacks 92.5%

White 73.9%
Black 18.6%
All other 7.5%
Hispanic origin 7.9%

4. HOUSING — Overall Housing Utilization

Vacant housing 6. 1%
Occupied housing 93.9%
Owner occupied 51.4%

Single-family housing is 66.8% of total

Occupancy by Race:
Whites 2.36 persons/household
Blacks 2.92
American Indian/Aleut 3.15
Asian/Pacific Isl. 4.12
Other 3.59
Hispanic 3.60

*Complete city-wide census profile statistics are found at Tab 4

158

HOUSING - continued
Structures

Average units constructed during decade 1940-1980: 8,618
Units constructed during 1980’s: 4,957

Neighborhood Stability

56% of residents moved into their home since 1985

69% of residents moved into their home since 1980

(The movement rate since 1985 is the equivalent of everyone moving
approximately once every 9 years)

Miscellaneous
5.7% of households have no phone
13.3% of households have no car
1/3 of homeowners have no mortgage

Housing costs as % of household income

14.7% of homeowners pay more than 30% of household income
41.2% of renters pay more than 30% of household income

EDUCATION

29.7% of residents are in school — and 34.7% of those are in college. This
means that 1 in 10 residents of Lansing is a college student.

27% of residents age 25+ never graduated from high school: 18.4%
graduated from college with a BA or advanced degree

DISABILITIES — (non-institutionalized persons)

Age 1-64: 1 in 18 (5.5%) with personal disability
Age 16-64: 1 in 10 (10.7) with work disability

Age 65+: 3 in 13 (23.0%) with personal disability
Age 65+: 2 in 11 (18.1%) have mobility disability
PLACE OF BIRTH

Only 3.1% born outside of U.S., but of those, 41.2% came to Lansing
during the 1980’s

159

10.

CHILDREN
City has 34,912 children under age 18 — (27.4% of total population)

Children under age six: 60.3% of mothers are in the labor force. In
57.2% of families with children under six, all parent work.

For children between six and seventeen: 75.3% of mothers are int eh
labor force. In 67.4% of these families, all parent work.

Teenagers: city-wide, 548 (8.3%) of all persons 16-19 are not in school,
have not graduated, and are unemployed (or are not in the labor force)

Children and poverty: See section 10 below
LABOR FORCE
2/3 white collar workers; 1/3 blue collar

Rank of employers by % of workers

Retail trade 19.1%
Manufacturing (durable goods) 11.6%
Public administration 11.4%
Educational services 10.0%
Health occupation 7._7°/g
59.8%

Overall 69% of persons age 16+ are in the labor force and 31% are not.
For men a little higher; women a little lower.
INCOME / POVERTY
Per Capita Income: $12,232
Percentage in poverty:
All ages: 19.4%
Age 65+ 11.4%
Children age 5-17 25.2%
Children under 5 29.9%
w/Female head of household:

Children age 5-17 53.2%
Children under 5 66.0%

160

Appendix B. Operating Budget for the Parks and Recreation Department 2000

(pages 2.12-2.17).

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

I. Department Appropriation
(Memo Detail)

Personnel

Operating Expenses

Capital Items

Debt Service

Operating Transfers (1)
Department Appropriation

Estimated Benefits
(General Administration)

Estimated Total
Department Budget

11. Summary of Changes

FY 1997-88

Actual

$4,014,040
1,279,240
307,1 l6

0
$5,600,396

$2,224,048

$7,824,444

FY 1998-99

Net Budget
12/3 1/99

$4,507,694
1,331,398
327,942

0
$6,167,034

$2,465,974

$8,633,008

F Y99-2000
Mayor’s

Recommended

Budget
$4,554,789
1,220,760
267,255

0
$6,042,804

$6,042,804

$8,578,88

% change
FY99 to FY2000

1.04%
-8.31%
-18.51%

-2.01%

A. Added after-school pilot program at Gardner Middle School M-Th 2:30 — 6:00 pm
B. Deleted Natural Ice skating service.
C. Donation-supported programs shown as zero revenues, zero expense; to be appropriated as

donations and any related fees come in.

111. Position Summary

(Memo Detail)
A. Full Time

. Executive

. Exempt

Teamster 214

Teamster 580

. UAW
TOTAL

mewN—

B. Part-Time
1. UAW Seasonal
2. UAW Part-Time
3. Teamster Part-Time

FY98
Actual

1.00
2.00
2.30
34.90
55.80
96.00

37
3
2

FY99
Budget

1.00
2.00
2.30
35.90
54.80
96.00

37
3
2

FY2000
Proposed

1.00
2.00
2.30
35.90
54.80
95.00

37
3
2

(1) Operating Transfers shown as revenues in the Enterprise Fund Fiscal Summaries (following pages).

161

I. Appropriation
(Memo Detail)

Personnel
Employee Benefits
Capital Expenses
Debt Service
Other
Operating Transfers
Total Fund Appropriation

11. Funding Sources
(Memo Detail)
From Working Capital Reserve
Sales, Fees, & Misc.
General Fund subsidy
Total Funding Sources

III. Summary of Changes

Reduction of subsidy reflects use of accumulated working capital.

IV. Position Summary
(Memo Detail)

A. Full Time
1. Teamster 580
2. UAW
Total

B. Other
1. UAW Seasonal
2. UAW Part-Time

Potter Park Zoo Fund

FY 1997-88

Actual
06/30/98

$586,843
415,412
306,331

0

655,034

0
$1,963,620

$426,579
1,512,684
$1,939,263

FY98
Actual

16
18

FY 1998-99

Net Budget
12/3 1/99

$628,660
441,485
286,557

0

629,028

0
$1,985,730

$514,167
1,454,592
$1,968,759

FY99
Budget

16
18

161

F Y99-2000
Mayor’s

Recommended

Budget

$656,] 19
452,724
142,744

0

646,870

0
$1,898,457

$249,312
595,281
1,053,864
$1,898,457

F Y2000

Recommended

16
18

% change
FY99 to FY2000

4.37%
2.55%
-50.19%
2.84%

-4.40%

15.78%
-27.55%

I. Appropriation
(Memo Detail)

Personnel
Employee Benefits
Capital Expenses
Debt Service
Other
Operating Transfers
Total Fund Appropriation

11. Funding Sources
(Memo Detail)

Sales, Fees, & Misc.

From Perpetual Care Fund

From Working Capital

General Fund subsidy
Total Funding Sources

111. Summary of Changes

Cemetery Fund

FY 1997-88
Actual
06/30/98

$245,953
169,210
42,753

0
255,850
13,730
$727,496

$263,974
82,589

465,731
$812,294

FY 1998-99
Net Budget
12/3 “99

$255,510
177,207
21,600

0
276,021
0
$730,338

$246,900
80,000
245,331
158,107
$730,338

FY99-2000
Mayor’s

Recommended

Budget

$269,866
185,708
44,600

0
224,609
0
$724,783

$250,745
70,000
216,553
187,485
$724,783

A. Add $20,000 for development of a columbarium at Evergreen Cemetary

IV. Position Summary
(Memo Detail)

A. Full Time
1. Teamster 580

2. UAW

B. Other

1. UAW Seasonal

FY98
Actual

M

FY99
Budget

VI

162

FY2000

Recommended

OM!—

% change
FY99 to FY 2000

5.62%
4.80%
106.48%
-l8.63%

-0.76%

I. Appropriation
(Memo Detail)

Personnel
Employee Benefits
Capital Expenses
Debt Service
Other
Operating Transfers
Total Fund Appropriation

11. Funding Sources
(Memo Detail)

Sales, Fees, & Misc.
Ingham County contribution
General Fund subsidy

Total Funding Sources

111. Summary of Changes

Golf Fund

FY 1997-88
Actual
06/30/98

$415,601
185,035
128,502
66,865
527,599

0
$1,323,602

$854,304
97,500
260,662
$1,212,466

FY 1998-99
Net Budget
12/3 1/99

$469,962
216,129
78,544
100,183
640,683

0
$1,505,501

$1,372,101
0

120,621
$1,492,722

FY99-2000 % change
Mayor’s FY99 to FY2000
Recommended

Budget

$491,345 4.55%
234,640 8,56%
131,500 67.42%
103,615 3.43%
650,882 1.59%

0

$1,611,982 7.07%
$1,475,925

0

136,057

$1,611,982

Fee change on cart rentals, and increase in number of carts to rent, supports increase of two seasonal

positions for course maintenance

IV. Position Summary
(Memo Detail)

A. Full Time
1. Teamster 214
2. Teamster 580
3. UAW
Total

B. Other
1. UAW Seasonal

FY98
Actual

0.7
2.1
4.2
7.0

10

FY99
Budget

0.7
2.1
4.2
7.0

163

FY2000
Recommended

0.7
2.1
4.2
7.0

10

412
412
412
412
412
412
412
412
412
412
412
412

410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410
410

933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890
933890

932690
933290
933290
933590
933690
933690
933690
933690
933690
933690
933690
933690
933690
933690

743000
743000
971000
971000
971000
974000
974000
974000
974000
975000
977000
992000

743000
974100
977008
977000
973101
743000
974100
974100
974100
974200
974100
974100
975000
975000

Parks Millage Fund

For the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2000

Estimated Revenue

Operating Transfer — General Fund

46042
46026
46077
46095
46096
46097
46098
46086
46089
46066
46049
46020

Appropriations

Parks Millage Capital Projects
Design Consultant
Repair & Maintenance City-wide
F enner Land Acquisition
Oak Park Acquisition
Poyet Acquisition
Washington Ice Rink Dasher Boards
Skate Board — BMX Facility
Rivertrail — Clippert to Harrison
Frances Park Shoreline
Foster Center Repairs
Park Playground Equip
Contingency

Parks Millage Capital Projects

CIP Schedule for all City Departments
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2000

43861
43856
43815
43862
13077
43863
43864
43865
43866
13071
43867
43868
43869
43870

Appropriations

Capital Projects — Infrastructure Fund
Master Planning
Prudden Access Rd
Communications Systems
Toning System
City Share Storm Sewers
Two Way Traffic Study
Dwight/Capital Intersec.
2000 Roads
Alley Repair
Sidewalks
Aurelius/Paulson
Diamond Reo Pap
City Hall Alarms
ADA Entrance-City Hall

164

Adopted
Budget

$1,748,403
$1,748,403

$62,498
2 1 ,l 70

1 50,000
128,882
144,000
100,000
56,000
8,733
109,120
308,000
60,000
600,000
$ 1 ,748,403

Adopted
Budget

$1 00,000
1 2,500

1 ,400,000
60,000
390,000
300,000

3 1 ,6000

1 ,255 ,400
50,000
450,000
500,000
50,000

2 1 0,000
94,000

410 933690 975000 43871 Architect/Maintenance

410 933690 977000 43812 Mainframe Computer Upgrades

410 933690 970000 113023 Ballfield Development

410 933690 970000 43839 Parks Bldg Use Equip Replacement
Capital Projects — Infrastructure Fund

165

100,000

1 ,208,000
16,970
6,200
$6,234,670

 

Appendix C. Recreation Maps.

7 2 .3 4 5 7 8

i"

 

PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION MAP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

C-1. Public Parks and Recreation Map.
166

 

 

  
  
  
  

 

 

£491? a L
1»: 'c. » 1a.;- - ,_ ”L.- Isa, 4_-_-—.
P‘_l'._h.4p' E If I
' III-7:; I.
' I, ...._.__. ‘ '
‘ i=1 ‘ 3 .
GIER COMMUNITY
1CENTER /’ j , _
.- ”'1'? r“ ”“1"” '4"? wt
"11,1 "’ 17 —_r__t;') 1 fi’
- . r «II-:TURN'ER DODGE HOUSE”. WIRE]? :1?!
'1 ' \ ram“ '11.. 1~ ‘11::
$13115: :5 BY E .. No.1;- .33 1'51 ,[H EEI. . .111.
_, -.' ,t.’ COMMUNITY P‘Elfi'l'" gu- mmy E‘ , 'r‘ls
: 4: h IW . WI - x I “3:11:31 -_.* :25;
xi 34:51 - 7
#égEEgGJSEMORfi L . IE? EEEI? Foera COMMUNITY s...“
1:11 [1L ‘ #15! .6 gCENTER :H—g 11.5 i ‘1'
. . ,jELETI‘S COMMUNITY ‘ 1 I- .11"
‘- .\'f'/ I Til" ‘§I.SIUIP’~1=¢3.:% jitlalflld "/ '

I; h_CENTER ; _n__ .

 
 

  

H’V OF LANSING

C
nan no uc-nuo- nenuuuv a»
... .- .u.
“'-

 

Q‘Rfl- A, A" ”I

_, ,- 'MILLER ROAD
13’ '~’ ~"’"t_:j».f“--.. 1
. "x xx; SENIOR CENTER

 

1 1711;?" '.‘“

  

 

L'.‘ 19$ i‘in Efifi

1:.

a.

    

rial

 

   

 

02. Community and Senior Centers.

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 
      

 
   

51»
X
jg: , ,.

_I
‘3:
E2333?

.t

   

f'“ '.‘."Irq: I‘r‘m‘miJ

“I ..._ :31 .. '
‘.‘ ‘r v ;{‘.lfrz.|: 13: "ih'ii'él’zijw'F.’
,,.. a?“ «1:; .1“, ['1’ . 5W93h'. fiwn'nmi H? ‘.‘-'33"? -.
r?" ZLETTs COMMUNITY I? I Hl_I 3’
f'fml CENTER 1;; 3;; . . mg“?

I’m—J'ST IOSEPHI-I ., 45" .. “’3. ”31 1% JE
fat-153:1 1,, 'P "1:;ng g} In}; Mani ”hilly ‘2 ,i"

“a" EIE‘E'EEH‘ It}? Wat‘s-
.- a: '3“va .

1113.11.21“ ,7

 
   
  
     
 
 
 

”3"
Les ”i.

        
 
 

   

It.

   

. ,3, I/_ .-
53: )5 AVERILL “a ELMHURST;

—*‘1‘,;.'I”I ‘. 3 fi/ 1:551:35.
”3' WOODCREEK'- ggém'iw I I '; I
A «e44.» ““231." ; ..., I- -.-. -.~-

fi*::1.7&& a...” _ \-

WAINWRIGHT. '. I'. ‘91-;
| 't

"I I PLEASANT VIEW1

5
l
l

huh

 

'" / AI-IWOOD ' _
FREE“; ' " WI
v". . ;. . 1...!

ti? ‘1! port:

cnv 0F LANSING
In“ nun «cannon gunman 0
- .u— u .

Ion-

 

 

 

C-3. School / Park Combinations.
168

 

 

-=1

35

GROESBECK
GOLF COURSE .

 

RED CEDAR V
QQLF COURSE

 

 
  
 
 
 
  
   
  

 

 

 

 

‘ ..
‘fl'l'lrI ' -
”II-i! . ,, , f ’ .
....‘ 1.3:” - . AV ~ '.’ , ,i' ‘
:H—r‘ _ - A J‘.' i ’ r ‘(S
’ '.’-‘1 A" '.I g!-
' .‘ {ET—”31 1V3? ...... IL 7,1
.g ‘ ' h
'5‘", ‘4’:- +" .~’ “:3:

. WAVERLY GOLF COURSE; 1:4; ,
"fink-2;! AH ; L. x?" 43m?» ’ 4 ~ .

' \ ~ , Vii . r?‘ " l-f J.
‘_ 7.x- Ff; EVERGREEN‘im
‘c? EM? , ~ CEMETERL- 1,.

..i ’ ‘4,’ H} ”hr ‘ .
'11 améra‘f-a '" j
.M u

 

SYCAMORE GOLF W
1‘ COURSE -%‘L4fi.\‘ '49?) n“
‘.‘-""4 ””33"?“ ‘ MT HOPE CEMETERY

   

  

<1 2“ 3*
‘L ~"fl,
$34.73"

. Pp.-
"—4

 

-b1;_, ,
. , ,
on or unsmo _ I“. ‘ i ..
nus nun ntcnunou nun-mun fl __‘__ ' N-‘.::_.—¢J¢“_»' ‘~ , \2. ,
...... ‘... .: I‘ ...m . ..-;_¢. ‘ __ ‘.‘ ‘
-'- u: - z I . n , -»
‘.‘ h .—L.———\ , .‘L‘ ,I, a- n.
...m. ,_ K.
__

 

 

C-4. City Owned Golf Courses and Cemeteries.
169

 

 

   

 

 
  

“up! E! ‘ LF '31“ «a
{ITS-Iii? I: ' “an. unfit? lr‘t ‘ 1:411- V “‘35
711:9 _ E

‘ . Ir: m; ’ ”flint
, _STATE CAPITOL fist CrrY_ MARKET _l [IL
. " “Heft fg‘I

    
   
  

  
 

. IMPRESSION '95;
£34 1M1CH1GAN HISTORIC Hawk '* MUSEUM 3M1, , _. _
T2) MUSEUM FHEX’ ”it”: 1'“ E._ ‘le RE OLDS MUSEUM ““5
$337.73 ;_ SCOTT HOUSE AND-_. ,-. f‘-'*=.’«&:J i”: W ég‘iT
~‘ ;“-./: , 1 . z: , PM;
.I... @COOLEY 7GARDENS, . .4" '3‘ It RED CEDAR RIVER gig
..fi’ sz ’13 ...: OTT_E_RPA1'7;R-“'I

.MOORES PARK ‘.'-if , f. . CREGO PARK 4;

.1“

hi:

 

       
   

 

 

cnv or IANSING ' . - ~ "... I ' i y
nus nus uc-unou nun-nan" . _- A ‘ , I _ .
...... . ~-’ 7- l... r.
I , l I . u .,
_...___ a-.. , . A ‘ ...—
.. '.

 

 

C-5. Natural and Historical Sites and Museums.
170

 

 

Va: iZDOU
QZ<4 ZO§<mxumM Exam

. 6...

(int
, ... moi:

... - 5...be

 

 

 

C-6. Regional Composite of Recreational Lands.

171

Appendix D. Michigan’s recreation opportunity standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Opportunity Plan Standard (Units/Population)
Local Park Land (acres) 10/1,000
Archeijy RangesI l/S0,000
Ballfieldsz 1/3,000
Outdoor Basketball CourtsZ l/5,000
Bicycle Trails (miles) 1/40,000
Golf CourcesZ 1/25,000
Indoor Ice Rinks 1/50,000
Outdoor Ice Rinks — Artificial 1/20,000
Picnic areas (tables) l/ZOO
PlaygroundsZ 1/3,000
Rifle Rangesl 1/50,000
Shotgun Rnagesl 1/50,000
Sledding HillsZ l/40,000
Soccer FieldsZ l/20,000
Outdoor Swimming Pools l/40,000
Outdoor Tennis CourtsZ l/4,000
Boat Launches (Parking) 1/400
Campgrounds (Campsites)3 1/150
Cross-Country Ski Trails (miles) 1/ 10,000
Fishing Access (feet) 1,000/1,000
Fishing Peers 1/100,000
Hiking Trails (miles) 1/5,000
Horseback Riding Trails (miles) 1/5,000

 

 

 

 

' — Includes private clubs and commercial establishments.
2 — Does not include facilities on school grounds.

3 — Includes commercial facilities.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1986. Building Michigan’s Recreaggn

Future, Appendix B, pages 100-101

172

 

I
l7

   

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1|MITITZIIITIMMITITITITLNJHI