Courtesey of Santa Clara Parks

Courtesey of Emma Shlaes

Park Access

Many of us have memories of visiting parks whether it be with our parents or going on a field trip. Perhaps you currently visit a park daily. Yet, within the City of Santa Clara, some neighborhoods lack park access. Park access is a broad term, for the purpose of this analysis, park access is defined by the ability to walk to a park, one mile, and the number of parks within this one mile radius. This study classifies a park as a green space which may or may not have a play structure or other amenities such as a restroom. Park access at two sites, El Camino Real and Lawrence Station will be assessed. These sites are planned affordable housing sites for the city. Affordable housing residents already have limited access to other amenities, such as grocery stores. Very few studies have solely explored the intersection between affordable housing and park access.

The Importance of Equitable Park Access

Health

In the midst of a pandemic, park access may seem to be an arbitrary issue. However, park access is a matter of environmental justice. Access to parks can improve one’s physical and mental well being (Rigolon 2016). To be denied access to parks can severely decrease one’s mental and physical health. This is especially true during the pandemic, when most gyms have closed. Neighborhood parks are free and within close proximity, promoting exercise among residents.

Historical Dimensions

Park access is segregated by race and soci-economic class. For example, in the United States minorities make up 37% of the population, but only account for 22% of visitors at National Parks- a 15% difference (Loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2019). Hence, within the United States, there is indication that BIPOC individuals don’t have equal access to parks. It should be noted that there is a larger history of inequity behind land use and BIPOC communities, such as Indigenous peoples in the United States getting their land colonized The Avarna Group and POST 2020.Or the enslavement of African Americans to work the land for crops and the history of Asian workers on railroads aree two instances in which BIPOC people were not allowed to enjoy the land. Central Park was actually build upon land stolen from squatters, immigrants, and African Americans (Larson 2018). As beautiful as parks may be, their pasts and current statuses originate out of oppression. Ironically, the same peoples who were historically oppressed in the construction of parks, are not able to access them now.

Income and Race

Despite this deep rooted segregation in land use, there is some contention as to whether or BIPOC individuals actually have less access to parks. Some studies have actually found that Blacks and Latinos live closer to parks than White individuals (Rigolon 2016). Meanwhile, other studies have said the opposite. This difference is speculated to be a result in differing patterns in urban and suburban areas according to Rigolon 2016. The quality of parks that whites have access to are better than those of Latino individuals and Blacks (Rigolon et al. 2018). Yet, there are researches who have found minority neighborhoods were found to have fewer acres of park avaialable to them (Weiss et al. 2018). There is contention within the scientific community in regards to whether or BIPOC communities have less access to parks than White communities.

Research Questions

In light of the following information regarding inequity to park access this study aims to answer the following questions:

Figure 1

Figure 1 represents the number of parks within the county.

There are a total of 28 parks in the City of Santa Clara, as seen in Figure 1. Within the boundary of El Camino Real there are two parks. Meanwhile within the Lawrence Station neighborhood, there is only one park. However, these are not the only parks that residents will have access to. A one mile buffer will demonstrate what parks are within a walkable distance, one mile, of the neighborhood boundary.

The map denotes how a a one mile buffer greatly increases the park availability in El Camino Real. Rather than having two parks available, twenty parks are within a walkable one mile distance of the neighborhood. Four parks intersect this one mile boundary. Some of these parks over 4.8 acres, indicating that El Camino has a variety of park sizes. However, this is not the case for Lawrence Station in which all parks are under 4.8 acres. One park is definitely within a walkable distance from Lawrence Station, while one park intersects the one mile boundary. Including the parks that intersect the one mile buffer, Lawrence has a total of 6.1 park acres while El Camino had 169.05 park acres.This difference of over 160 park acres between the sites is most likely due to race or income according to previous park access studies.

Calculation Methodology

Analyzing the demographics of both sites allows them to be characterized. Who lives in these sites? El Camino Real population was calculated by joining the EL Camino Boundary to population data. This process was repeated with the city boundary and the Lawrence Station boundary to calculcate the total population for the city and the Lawrence Station neighborhoods. Unlike Lawrence, El Camino Real spans 12 census tracts making it more difficult to visual racial data. Hence, the average percentage of each racial group was calculated for El Camino by adding the percentages from all twelve census tracts and dividing them by twelve.This averaging process was completed for each racial group along with the Latino and Hispanic ethic group. All percentages were rounded to the nearest tenth. No such calculations were performed for Lawrence, as this neighborhood spans one census tract. Please note that Latino and Hispanic are not classified as races, but ethnicities (Iowa.gov n.d.) referring to ones cultural origin. Hence, any attempt to add the racial data and ethic data together will result in a percentage that is over 100%.

Figure 2

Figure 2 shows the breakdown of different racial groups across both sites. Use the icon with layered squares, under the plus and minus signs, to select certain groups.

El Camino Real Racial Group Analysis

El Camino Real has an approximate population of 63,296 people. Of this population, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders make up 0.77% of the neighborhood.The Indigenous population in El Camino Real is 0.52%; also under 1%.The average Black population within the site is 3.09%. The Asian population in this tract is by far much higher than the three aforementioned racial groups. While the Asian population varies over the tract, the average percentage of the Asian population for El Camino Real is 38.17%. While the White population ranges from 27% to 67% within the study area, the average White population totals to 43.0% making it the most prevalent racial group. However,this means that about 57% of the population within El Camino Real identifies as BIPOC. As aforementioned, these groups have historically been discriminated against when it comes to park access. Moreover, 20.47%, or about one fifth, of the neighborhood identifies themselves as belonging to the ethnic groups Hispanic or Latino.

Lawrence Racial Group Analysis

Lawrence Station’s population is about a fourth of El Camino Real’s at 14,523 people. The demographics of Lawrence slightly differ. The White population is 39.53%, similarly to El Camino Real where the White population is about 2% less. The Black population is 4.31%. The Indigenous and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations are both under 1% at 0.26%. Meanwhile, the Asian population is 47.28%. The Asian and White populations are the most prevalent groups in Lawrence station.The predominant racial group in this area is Asian.The racial makeups of El Camino and Lawrence station are similar in that Asian and White are the main two demographics. Despite the White population being the main racial group, about 60% of the tract identify as BIPOC. Moreover,the Hispanic and Latino population is similar to that of El Camino Real’s with the average being 19.65%.

Figure 3

Figure 3 maps the per capita income of the City of Santa Clara

Figure 4

Figure 4 plots parks acres against per capita income

Income Analysis

After characterizing the racial demographics, differences between income must be analyzed. In Figure 3 above, the per capita incomes over a 12 month span are mapped by census tract. It appears that Lawrence Station has an average income of 145,500 dollars. The 2019 per capita income over a year in the City of Santa Clara was 53,986 dollars according to The Census Bureau n.d. . Yet, most tracts in El Camino Real fall around 135,00 dollars, over the city’s average. It should be noted that the bottom left of Camino has a per capita income of 161,683 dollars which is an anomaly within the neighborhood. Overall, El Camino Real has an average of 116,345.40 dollars per capita income which is lower than Lawrence Station’s. However, in comparison to the city’s per capita income, both areas surpass it It’s surprising that El Camino has more parks (see Figure 1) as is the poorer of the 2 sites. There is no correlation between higher income areas, Lawrence Station in this instance, having more park acres or more parks in total as Figure 4 demonstrates. For El Camino Real and Lawrence station, the higher per capita income of Lawrence Station is not necessarily associated with a higher number of park acres.

Figure 5

Figure 5 shows the acres per park in Lawrence Station

Figure 6

Figure 6 shows the acres per park in El Camino Real

Findings

The racial makeups of El Camino Real and Lawrence were similar in that the Asian and White populations were the dominant racial groups, but overall the areas had higher percentages of BIPOC individuals than they did White individuals. As the Figures 5 and 6 above denote, El Camino Real had more parks and a higher amount of park acres than Lawrence Station.Despite Lawrence’s higher income it still had less parks then El Camino, even when considering parks that were in a walkable distance of one mile. Race was similar among the two sites and there was no correlation between park acres and higher income areas.Hence, it appears another factor other than race and income may be responsible for the disparity between the number of parks in both sites. Note, that when comparing the sites to each other, it is difficult to ascertain the roles race and income play within the city as a whole. However,looking at the broader scope of the City Santa Clara, would help conclude how race and income affect park access city wide. Hence, this analysis can only only speak for a small portion of the city and should not be used to make overarching generalizations. Factors other than race and income that could affect park access may be rooted in Lawrence Station’s and El Camino Real’s positions as affordable housing sites. Planners may have decided to prioritize other factors than park access, such as food accessibility, transit, and school access when building these neighborhoods. It is possible that park access was not as pressing as the aforementioned factors when constructing these affordable housing sites. Moreover, El Camino Real is closer to Santa Clara University. While this area may have a lower income than Lawrence, there could have been a push to install more parks in this area in order to attract students to the Santa Clara campus.

Reccomendations to Increase Park Access

There are a variety of ways in which parks access within the Lawrence vicinity can be increased. Some cities have implemented task forces or groups whose sole purpose is to support the construction of of parks within their neighborhood. For instance, the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust was founded in 2002 and aims to raise funds to implement green spaces in undeserved communities as funding is a major issue in the construction of parks (Raya & Rubin 2006). Perhaps local citizens could consider creating a task force to help create funding for more parks in Lawrence. However, this places the burden on citizens to advocate for a necessity they should already have. Another solution may be for the city to reevaluate their general plan to require more park access just as Seattle did(Raya & Rubin 2006). Furthermore, cities such Chicago reevaluated how land was being used within the city and converted concrete to green spaces within various schools (Raya & Rubin 2006). A similar land use evaluation could be conducted within the City of Santa Clara to see if there are any areas that can be converted to park space.Ultimately, the process of building more parks will requires the city to re-evaluate: (1) what does park access mean (2) what communities other than Lawrence do not have park access (3) what areas are suitable for parks. Cooperation among citizens and city planners will be needed in order to begin the process of increasing park access within the city.

Additional Information regarding park access in the City of Santa Clara can be found here.

The R script is available here. No preview is available, hit download for the full script.

References

California State Parks. (n.d.). Parks for All Californians: Park Access Tool. Retrieved from https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/parkaccess/?search=city-0669084&overlays1=parks,disadvantaged,noparkaccess&overlays2=parks,disadvantaged,parksper1000

City of Santa Clara. (n.d.). Parks & Recreation. Retrieved from https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/parks-recreationCity of Santa Clara. (n.d.).

El Camino Real Specific Plan. Retrieved from https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans/el-camino-realCity of Santa Clara. (n.d.).

Iowa.gov. (n.d.). Race and Ethnicity Classifications. Retrieved from https://www.iowadatacenter.org/aboutdata/raceclassification

Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP). Retrieved from https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans/lawrence-stationGibson, S.,

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Mukhija, V. (2018). Ensuring park equity: A California case study. Journal of Urban Design, 24(3), 385-405. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1497927

Larson, S. M. (2017). Imagining social justice and the false promise of urban park design. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(2), 391-406. doi:10.1177/0308518x17742156

POSTPaloAltoCA. (2020, September 18).Conservation for Whom? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5_e89oe1cQ&t=172s

Raya, R., & Rubin, V. (2006). Safety, Growth, and Equity: Parks and Open Space. 1-10. Retrieved from https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/SafetyGrowthEquity-ParksOpenSpace_final.pdf.

Rigolon, A. (2016). A Complex Landscape of Inequity in Access to Urban Parks: A Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160-169. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017

Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 156-169. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.026

Shlaes, E. (2016, March 25). SVBC Endorses Santa Clara County Parks Park Charter Fund, Measure A. Retrieved from https://bikesiliconvalley.org/2016/03/svbc-endorses-santa-clara-county-parks-park-charter-fund-measure-a/

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Santa Clara city, California. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaclaracitycalifornia/WTN220212#WTN220212

Weiss, C. C., Purciel, M., Bader, M., Quinn, J. W., Lovasi, G., Neckerman, K. M., & Rundle, A. G. (2011). Reconsidering Access: Park Facilities and Neighborhood Disamenities in New York City. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 297-310. doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9551-z