Green spaces for whom? A latent profile analysis of park-rich or -deprived neighborhoods in New York City

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104806Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Diversity of parks distribution patterns across diverse socioeconomic groups.

  • Approach to defining neighborhood typologies where parks are spatially distributed.

  • A need for appropriate urban greening strategies for different socioeconomic settings.

Abstract

This study investigates the diversity of neighborhood types in which green spaces, particularly parks, are either concentrated or sparsely distributed across different segments of society in New York City. Using a latent profile analysis, the study presents a probabilistic classification of neighborhood typologies based on various combinations of multiple explanatory factors related to their socioeconomic characteristics as well as green space provision indices. Findings reveal that not all parks are designed equally nor do they have uniform impacts on certain social groups and places, but the distribution patterns of parks exhibit complex variations across a geographically and socially diverse collection of neighborhoods in New York City. The findings and methodology of this study can offer valuable reference data for policymakers and urban planners to establish more appropriate and context-sensitive solutions for urban greening and green space development that better address the diverse needs of various socioeconomic groups.

Introduction

Urban green spaces have been a key component of cities around the world, as they have been shown to be linked to a variety of benefits related to environmental and economic advantages, as well as aesthetic and recreational opportunities. These benefits include promoting physical and mental wellness by encouraging recreational activities and reducing stress and depressive symptoms (Wolch et al., 2014); improving the quality of the urban environment by reducing air pollution or having a cooling effect on surrounding areas (Cohen et al., 2014); and generating economic gains by leading to an increase in real estate and business market values, while attracting investments and people into their vicinities through improved neighborhood attractiveness (Jung et al., 2016, Park and Kim, 2019). Many cities have accordingly improved existing green spaces or introduced new green amenities as urban development strategies to turn towards environmental sustainability, reinvigorate their economies, and revitalize urban conditions (Anguelovski et al., 2018).

Given the links between urban green spaces and such benefits, an emerging concern is disparities in green space provision and distribution across different groups of society on the basis of their socio-economic conditions. A number of environmental justice studies on green space have pointed out that not only do higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods have better proximity to urban parks and green amenities, but also these spaces are generally larger and of higher quality than those with low socioeconomic status (Rigolon et al., 2020, Rigolon and Németh, 2020, Wolch et al., 2014). Rigolon and Németh, 2021, Wolch et al., 2005 further claimed that urban green spaces, which are unevenly distributed and often concentrated in White and affluent neighborhoods, would eventually bring more enhanced prestige to those areas by making the surrounding environment more attractive and desirable; whereas low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are increasingly marginalized into less desirable areas where green spaces are more scarce and poorly maintained. Such geographically uneven distribution of urban green amenities has increasingly been recognized as a significant indicator exacerbating social inequality in low socioeconomic status communities, resulting in negative public health outcomes as well as a sense of psychological distress and deprivation (Wolch et al., 2014).

Not all parks and green spaces, however, are designed equally nor do they have the same impact on certain social groups and places; there are more complex sets of factors defining the distributional justice in different socioeconomic and geographical contexts. Some studies, for example, have revealed that although lower income and people of color may live closer to urban parks and green spaces, disparities in park acreage and quality, disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards (i.e., polluting and toxic sources), and safety-related concerns discourage them from using those spaces (Boone et al., 2009, Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz, 2002, Rigolon and Németh, 2021).

Adopting urban greening initiatives simply in underserved communities also may not always be the answer to addressing environmental injustice problems. As marginalized neighborhoods benefit and become valued again through improved attractiveness and environmental conditions associated with green space provisions, existing communities that the improvements are intended to benefit are often displaced by higher socioeconomic status groups capable of paying the higher rents (Anguelovski et al., 2018). This can exacerbate existing inequalities and perpetuate a cycle of underinvestment in marginalized neighborhoods.

Considering such inconsistency and complexity of parks distribution patterns across diverse socioeconomic groups, coupled with a wide variety of aforementioned benefits and costs of green space provision, it is important to examine those urban greening strategies through a broader empirical lens, focusing on how and where urban green amenities are located across a geographically and socially diverse collection of neighborhoods that might need different actions. Although a number of existing urban studies have explored neighborhood typologies to capture variation among neighborhoods or different dimensions of neighborhood changes (Chapple and Zuk, 2016, Delmelle, 2015, Morenoff and Tienda, 1997), no typological study has focused on the complexity and diversity of neighborhood types exhibiting localized spatial concentration or lack of concentration of green spaces or amenities across different socioeconomic and geographical contexts.

The research questions of this study are thus: In what types of neighborhoods are green spaces—especially parks—either concentrated or sparsely distributed in New York City? What are the patterns of differentiation among each neighborhood typology? More specifically, this study attempts to broaden the empirical analysis of varying patterns of parks distribution and provision across the city, using a latent profile analysis based on different combinations of multiple, diverse explanatory factors related not only to neighborhood’s socioeconomic status commonly used in previous neighborhood typology studies but to green space provision indices. While previous studies have also identified the geographically and procedurally uneven distribution of urban parks between different segments of society, the focus has mainly been on its statistical or spatial correlations with a limited number of predetermined socioeconomic status indicators (Rigolon et al., 2018, Vaughan et al., 2013) or the exploratory, qualitative, or comparative mapping and data analyses based on highly subjective criteria (Boone et al., 2009, Rigolon and Németh, 2021). Latent profile analysis represents a methodological advance over previous typological studies by providing a probabilistic classification of observations into distinct neighborhood groups that share similar characteristics, without assuming the number of classes and their sizes a priori (Charles, 2020).

Section snippets

Park development in New York City

The City of New York has one of the largest urban park systems in the United States. The majority of New York City’s green spaces and recreational facilities were created during the mid-twentieth century, with a sufficient budget allocation to the Department of Parks and Recreation (also known as the NYC Parks) (Shakarian, 2014). In particular, Robert Moses—a former New York City Parks Commissioner from 1934 to 1960—built 20,673 acres of parkland and 658 playgrounds in New York City during his

Neighborhood typology and green space provision

A number of existing urban studies have explored neighborhood typologies to capture variation among neighborhoods or different dimensions of neighborhood changes, by simply looking for and comparing their demographics and property market conditions. Morenoff and Tienda (1997), for example, differentiated four types of Chicago’s neighborhoods—stable middle-class, gentrifying yuppie, transitional working-class, and ghetto underclass—according to their socioeconomic profile, and documented the

Dataset and sample

The maps and records of New York City’s parks properties, including national, state, and city-owned parks, were obtained from the Planning and Development division of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, the U.S. National Park Service, and the New York State Geographic Information Systems Clearinghouse. The demographic and socioeconomic data in New York City came from the 2000 U.S. Census and the American Community Survey 2015–2019 five-year estimates at the census tract level.

Findings

This section explains the defining characteristics of the six types of neighborhoods. Fig. 2 presents a map of the locations of each typology. Detailed descriptions of the variables for each typology are presented in Appendix B.

Discussion

The study investigates the diversity of neighborhood types in which urban parks are either concentrated or sparsely distributed in New York City, while classifying six distinct types of neighborhoods based on their socioeconomic characteristics as well as green space provision indices.

As discussed above, in New York City, some White and affluent neighborhoods tend to have better accessibility to urban parks and green amenities, compared with less well-off and minority groups, to a greater or

Conclusion

The current paper improves upon previous research related with green space development and environmental justice by proposing a method—a latent profile method—for deriving neighborhood typologies that are statistically rigorous, geographically rich, and readily interpretable (Charles, 2020, Higgins and Kanaroglou, 2016). More specifically, while the existing studies have also identified the geographically and procedurally uneven distribution of urban parks and green spaces, they have mainly

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (54)

  • A. Rigolon

    A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2016)
  • A. Rigolon et al.

    Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2018)
  • A. Rigolon et al.

    “We’re not in the business of housing:” Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects

    Cities

    (2018)
  • K. Van Eck et al.

    How school climate relates to chronic absence: A multi–level latent profile analysis

    Journal of School Psychology

    (2017)
  • J.R. Wolch et al.

    Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2014)
  • I. Anguelovski et al.

    Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: A longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona

    Urban Geography

    (2018)
  • J.J. Betancur et al.

    Claiming neighborhood: New ways of understanding urban change

    (2016)
  • C.G. Boone et al.

    Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland

    Annals of the Association of American Geographers

    (2009)
  • Building Bridges Across the River. (2018). 11th Street Bridge Park’s Equitable Development...
  • K. Chapple et al.

    Forewarned: The Use of Neighborhood Early Warning Systems for Gentrification and Displacement

    Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research

    (2016)
  • S.L. Charles

    A Typology of Mansionization in the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, Illinois, 2000–2015

    Housing Policy Debate

    (2018)
  • S.L. Charles

    A Latent Profile Analysis of Suburban Single-Family Rental Housing (SFR) Neighborhoods

    Housing Policy Debate

    (2020)
  • J. Chow

    Differentiating urban neighborhoods: A multivariate structural model analysis

    Social Work Research

    (1998)
  • City of New York. (2014). Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year...
  • City of New York. (2019). OneNYC 2050: Building a strong and fair...
  • L.M. Collins et al.

    Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences

    (2010)
  • W. Curran et al.

    Just green enough: Urban development and environmental gentrification

    (2017)
  • View full text