Access to Green Space in Boston Jillian Howell ...

1
Access to Green Space in Boston Jillian Howell „12 Environmental Studies Program Colby College ES 212 Spring 2011 ABSTRACT The purpose of this project was to use GIS and statistical analyses to explore the relationship between access to green space and race in Boston. Using census data, the city was divided by race and block groups. Block groups were categorized based on whether or not they were adjacent to green space. Findings concluded that races are not equally distributed across adjacent and non adjacent block groups, indicating unequal access to green space. INTRO Boston is a bustling urban center with designated areas of green space that provide residents with a place of refuge from pollution, crowds, and traffic. Environmental justice recognizes that the availability of and access to green space, a public good, is compromised by structural disadvantages associated with race (Taylor et. Al, 55). At the center of the rise of the environmental justice movement in the 1980s was a growing recognition and awareness of unevenness in the distribution of environmental costs across people of color and low-income. In recent years, though, emerging efforts in the environmental justice field have focused on environmental benefits and METHODS Data was retrieved from the 2000 U.S. Census and the Massachusetts Office of GIS. Conservation, recreation land, and parkways were taken from the open space data layer and classified as green space. Census block group data, the smallest subdivision of the census, was used to divide the city, and the three largest racial groups (white, black, and hispanic) were displayed according to block groups. Using ArcGIS, census block groups were categorized based on whether they were adjacent to or not adjacent to green space. A Mann Whitney U test was conducted in order to determine whether there was a significant difference in the distribution of each race in adjacent block groups vs. non- adjacent block groups. RESULTS Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test: ·Failure to reject null hypothesis that stated: the distribution of whites was the same across block groups adjacent to and non-adjacent to green space. P-value was found to be .517, which was greater than the significance level of .05. ·Failure to reject null hypothesis that stated: the distribution of hispanics was the same across block groups adjacent to and non-adjacent to green space. P- value was found to be .062, which was greater than the significance level of .05. ·Rejection of null hypothesis that stated: the distribution of blacks was the same across block groups adjacent to and non-adjacent to green space. P-value of .032 was less that the significance level of .05. Maps display the distribution of white, black, and hispanic populations in relation to green space. Tables display figures based on the maps. DISCUSSION These findings are consistent with the original hypothesis that there was an association between access to urban green space in the city of Boston and race. A significant difference in the percentage of blacks across adjacent versus non- adjacent block groups points to an association. This significant difference concludes that there is a greater percentage of blacks in the non- adjacent block groups, which were the block groups with less access to green space. Difficulties with this research included defining access. While previous studies, including one conducted in Los Angeles, used buffers around parks to determine access and proximity, the small area of Boston made the use of buffers ineffective. Problems encountered created by using adjacency and non-adjacency as measures of access was the failure to take into take into account quality and size of green space. Other difficulties were accurately calculating adjacency when there were errors in digitization of the green space, REFERENCES 1. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2010/availability.html 2. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/City_Links_Profile_tcm3-13196.pdf 3. http://www.cityprojectca.org/ 4. Floyd, Myron F., and Cassandra Y. Johnson. "Coming to Terms with Environmental Justice in Outdoor Recreation: A Conceptual Discussion with Research Implications." Leisure Sciences 24.1 (2002): 59-77. Environment Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011. 5. Taylor, Wendell C., Walker S. Carlos Poston, Lovell Jones, and M. Katherine Kraft. “Environmental Justice: Obesity,Physical Activity, and Healthy Eating.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2006: 30-54. Thanks to Professor Philip Nyhus Manny Gimond for their assistance and guidance on this project. Massachusetts Office of GIS, ESRI NAD_1983_StatePlane_Massachusetts_Mainland_FIPS_2001 Projection: Lambert_Conformal_Conic GCS_North_American_1983 Datum: D_North_American_1983 BOSTON HARBOR QUINCY MILTON DEDHAM REVERE CAMBRIDGE BROOKLINE EVERETT SOMERVILLE WATERTOWN CHELSEA WINTHROP Green Space >75 % Black Adjacent >75% Black Not Adjacent >75% Hispanic Adjacent >75% Hispanic Not Adjacent >75% White Adjacent >75%White Not Adjacent No Population >75% 0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles l BOSTON HARBOR QUINCY MILTON DEDHAM CAMBRIDGE BROOKLINE SOMERVILLE WATERTOWN CHELSEA WINTHROP Green Space % Hispanic 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles l BOSTON HARBOR QUINCY MILTON DEDHAM CAMBRIDGE BROOKLINE SOMERVILLE WATERTOWN CHELSEA WINTHROP Green Space % Black 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles l BOSTON HARBOR QUINCY N MILTON DEDHAM CAMBRIDGE BROOKLINE SOMERVILLE WATERTOWN CHELSEA WINTHROP Green Space % White 0 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles l # Block Groups Adjacent to Green Space # Block Groups Non- Adjacent to Green Space % Block Groups Adjacent to Green Space % Block Groups Non- Adjacent to Green Space >75% White 48 109 13 44 >75 % Black 34 29 9 12 >75 % Hisp 3 1 1 1 Total Pop # of People in Non- Adjacent Block Groups # of People in Adjacent Block Groups % Total Pop. of City % Living in Adjacent Block Group % Living in Non- Adjacent Block Group White 291,561 192,430 99,131 50 34 66 Black 140,305 120,662 19,643 24 14 86 Hisp 85,089 78,282 6,807 8 8 92 Total 589,141 229,765 359,376 100 61 39 amenities, including urban design, public health, and access to outdoor recreation (Floyd and Johnson 59).This study explored the association between race and access to green space in Boston‟s urban environment. CONCLUSION Access to green space was not evenly distributed across race. There was a significant difference between the distribution of blacks across adjacent and non adjacent block groups. Further research into quality and size of green space areas would contribute to this analysis.

Transcript of Access to Green Space in Boston Jillian Howell ...

Page 1: Access to Green Space in Boston Jillian Howell ...

Access to Green Space in BostonJillian Howell „12

Environmental Studies Program

Colby College

ES 212 Spring 2011

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this project was to use GIS

and statistical analyses to explore the

relationship between access to green space

and race in Boston. Using census data, the

city was divided by race and block groups.

Block groups were categorized based on

whether or not they were adjacent to green

space. Findings concluded that races are

not equally distributed across adjacent and

non adjacent block groups, indicating

unequal access to green space.

INTRO

Boston is a bustling urban center with

designated areas of green space that

provide residents with a place of refuge

from pollution, crowds, and traffic.

Environmental justice recognizes that the

availability of and access to green space,

a public good, is compromised by

structural disadvantages associated with

race (Taylor et. Al, 55). At the center of the

rise of the environmental justice

movement in the 1980s was a growing

recognition and awareness of unevenness

in the distribution of environmental costs

across people of color and low-income. In

recent years, though, emerging efforts in

the environmental justice field have

focused on environmental benefits and

METHODS

Data was retrieved from the 2000 U.S. Census and the Massachusetts Office of

GIS. Conservation, recreation land, and parkways were taken from the open

space data layer and classified as green space. Census block group data, the

smallest subdivision of the census, was used to divide the city, and the three

largest racial groups (white, black, and hispanic) were displayed according to

block groups. Using ArcGIS, census block groups were categorized based on

whether they were adjacent to or not adjacent to green space. A Mann Whitney

U test was conducted in order to determine whether there was a significant

difference in the distribution of each race in adjacent block groups vs. non-adjacent block groups.

RESULTS

Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test:

·Failure to reject null hypothesis that stated: the distribution of whites was the

same across block groups adjacent to and non-adjacent to green space.

P-value was found to be .517, which was greater than the significance level of

.05.

·Failure to reject null hypothesis that stated: the distribution of hispanics was the

same across block groups adjacent to and non-adjacent to green space.

P- value was found to be .062, which was greater than the significance level of

.05.

·Rejection of null hypothesis that stated: the distribution of blacks was the same

across block groups adjacent to and non-adjacent to green space.

P-value of .032 was less that the significance level of .05.

Maps display the distribution of white, black, and hispanic populations in relation

to green space. Tables display figures based on the maps.

DISCUSSION

These findings are consistent with the original hypothesis that there was an association between

access to urban green space in the city of Boston and race. A significant difference in the

percentage of blacks across adjacent versus non- adjacent block groups points to an association.

This significant difference concludes that there is a greater percentage of blacks in the non-

adjacent block groups, which were the block groups with less access to green space.

Difficulties with this research included defining access. While previous studies, including one

conducted in Los Angeles, used buffers around parks to determine access and proximity, the small

area of Boston made the use of buffers ineffective. Problems encountered created by using

adjacency and non-adjacency as measures of access was the failure to take into take into account

quality and size of green space. Other difficulties were accurately calculating adjacency when

there were errors in digitization of the green space,

REFERENCES

1. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2010/availability.html

2. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/City_Links_Profile_tcm3-13196.pdf

3. http://www.cityprojectca.org/

4. Floyd, Myron F., and Cassandra Y. Johnson. "Coming to Terms with Environmental Justice in Outdoor

Recreation: A Conceptual Discussion with Research Implications." Leisure Sciences 24.1 (2002): 59-77.

Environment Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

5. Taylor, Wendell C., Walker S. Carlos Poston, Lovell Jones, and M. Katherine Kraft. “Environmental

Justice: Obesity,Physical Activity, and Healthy Eating.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2006: 30-54.

Thanks to Professor Philip Nyhus Manny Gimond for their assistance and

guidance on this project.

Massachusetts Office of GIS, ESRI

NAD_1983_StatePlane_Massachusetts_Mainland_FIPS_2001

Projection: Lambert_Conformal_Conic

GCS_North_American_1983

Datum: D_North_American_1983

BOSTON HARBOR

CANTON

QUINCY

NEWTON

MILTON

NEEDHAM

DEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

G r e e n S p a c e

>75 % Black Adjacent

>75% Black Not Adjacent

>75% Hispanic Adjacent

>75% Hispanic Not Adjacent

>75% White Adjacent

>75%White Not Adjacent

No Population >75%

>75% Hispanic Adjacent

<Double-click here to enter title>

<Double-click here to enter text>

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

NEWTON

MILTON

CANTON

DEDHAM

NEEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

^Boston

NEW HAMPSHIRE

V E R M O N T

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

R H O D EI S L A N D

C O N N E C T I C U T

N E W Y O R K

ATLANTIC OCEAN

(

0 0.5 10.25 Miles l

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

CANTON

NEWTON

MILTON

NEEDHAM

DEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

G r e e n S p a c e

% H i s p a n i c

0 - 2 5

2 6 - 5 0

5 1 - 7 5

7 6 - 1 0 0

<Double-click here to enter title>

<Double-click here to enter text>

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

NEWTON

MILTON

CANTON

DEDHAM

NEEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

^Boston

NEW HAMPSHIRE

V E R M O N T

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

R H O D EI S L A N D

C O N N E C T I C U T

N E W Y O R K

ATLANTIC OCEAN

(

0 0.5 10.25 Miles l

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

CANTON

NEWTON

MILTON

NEEDHAM

DEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

G r e e n S p a c e

% B l a c k

0 - 2 5

2 6 - 5 0

5 1 - 7 5

7 6 - 1 0 0

<Double-click here to enter title>

<Double-click here to enter text>

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

NEWTON

MILTON

CANTON

DEDHAM

NEEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

^Boston

NEW HAMPSHIRE

V E R M O N T

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

R H O D EI S L A N D

C O N N E C T I C U T

N E W Y O R K

ATLANTIC OCEAN

(

0 0.5 10.25 Miles l

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

CANTON

NEWTON

MILTON

NEEDHAM

DEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

G r e e n S p a c e

% W h i t e

0 - 2 5

2 6 - 5 0

5 1 - 7 5

7 6 - 1 0 0

<Double-click here to enter title>

<Double-click here to enter text>

BOSTON HARBOR

QUINCY

NEWTON

MILTON

CANTON

DEDHAM

NEEDHAM

MEDFORD

REVERE

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HULL

EVERETT

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

^Boston

NEW HAMPSHIRE

V E R M O N T

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

R H O D EI S L A N D

C O N N E C T I C U T

N E W Y O R K

ATLANTIC OCEAN

(

0 0.5 10.25 Miles l

# Block

Groups

Adjacent

to Green

Space

# Block

Groups

Non-

Adjacent

to Green

Space

% Block

Groups

Adjacent

to Green

Space

% Block

Groups

Non-

Adjacent

to Green

Space

>75%

White

48 109 13 44

>75 %

Black

34 29 9 12

>75 %

Hisp

3 1 1 1

Total

Pop

# of People

in Non-

Adjacent

Block

Groups

# of

People

in

Adjacent

Block

Groups

%

Total

Pop. of

City

% Living

in

Adjacent

Block

Group

% Living

in Non-

Adjacent

Block

Group

White 291,561 192,430 99,131 50 34 66

Black 140,305 120,662 19,643 24 14 86

Hisp 85,089 78,282 6,807 8 8 92

Total 589,141 229,765 359,376 100 61 39

amenities, including urban design, public health, and access to outdoor

recreation (Floyd and Johnson 59).This study explored the association between race and access to green space in Boston‟s urban environment.

CONCLUSION

Access to green space was not evenly distributed across

race. There was a significant difference between the

distribution of blacks across adjacent and non adjacent block

groups. Further research into quality and size of green space

areas would contribute to this analysis.