We examine the relationship between urban residents’ access and use of nearby green spaces, recognizing that this link can vary across neighborhoods. Our study integrates park data from the Trust for Public Land and population mobility data from SafeGraph for the Los Angeles urban area. Using geographically weighted regression (GWR) and multiscale GWR (MGWR), we identify neighborhoods with high park accessibility but significantly lower usage. A post hoc analysis of MGWR results shows that neighborhoods with good park proximity but low usage tend to have fewer White residents and lower educational attainment than those with higher usage. Similarly, neighborhoods with ample park acreage but underutilization are characterized by younger populations, fewer households with children, fewer female residents, and lower educational attainment compared to neighborhoods with higher park usage. These findings suggest that physical access alone may not ensure park usage, particularly among marginalized communities. We discuss implications for urban planners and decision-makers.
AhnJ. J.KimY.LucioJ.CorleyE. A.BentleyM. (2020). Green spaces and heterogeneous social groups in the U.S. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126637
2.
BaranP. K.SmithW. R.MooreR. C.FloydM. F.BocarroJ. N.CoscoN. G.DanningerT. M. (2014). Park use among youth and adults: Examination of individual, social, and urban form factors. Environment and Behavior, 46(6), 768–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512470134
3.
Bedimo-RungA. L.MowenA. J.CohenD. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2, Supplement 2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024
4.
BoeingG.LuY.PilgramC. (2023). Local inequities in the relative production of and exposure to vehicular air pollution in Los Angeles. Urban Studies, 60(12), 2351–2368. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221145403
5.
BoultonC.Dedekorkut-HowesA.ByrneJ. (2018). Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.029
6.
BrunsdonC.FotheringhamA. S.CharltonM. E. (1996). Geographically weighted regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis, 28(4), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00936.x
7.
ByrneJ. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002
8.
CohenD. A.HanB.DeroseK. P.WilliamsonS.MarshT.RaaenL.McKenzieT. L. (2016). The paradox of parks in low-income areas: Park use and perceived threats. Environment and Behavior, 48(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515614366
9.
ComberA.BrunsdonC.CharltonM.DongG.HarrisR.LuB.LüY.MurakamiD.NakayaT.WangY.HarrisP. (2023). A route map for successful applications of geographically weighted regression. Geographical Analysis, 55(1), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12316
10.
CoombesE.JonesA. P.HillsdonM. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social Science & Medicine, 70(6), 816–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.020
11.
CouttsC.ChapinT.HornerM.TaylorC. (2013). County-level effects of green space access on physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 10(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.10.2.232
12.
DaiD. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002
13.
DaviesI. P.ChristensenJ.KareivaP. (2019). Assessing the flow to low-income urban areas of conservation and environmental funds approved by California’s Proposition 84. PLoS One, 14(2), e0211925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211925
14.
DeroseK. P.HanB.WilliamsonS.CohenD. A. (2018). Gender disparities in park use and physical activity among residents of high-poverty neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Women’s Health Issues, 28(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2017.11.003
15.
DongJ.GuoR.GuoF.GuoX.ZhangZ. (2023). Pocket parks-a systematic literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 18(8), 083003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ace7e2
FotheringhamA. S.BrunsdonC.CharltonM. (2003). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. John Wiley & Sons.
18.
FotheringhamA. S.YangW.KangW. (2017). Multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR). Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(6), 1247–1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1352480
19.
Giles-CortiB.BroomhallM. H.KnuimanM.CollinsC.DouglasK.NgK.LangeA.DonovanR. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2, Supplement 2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018
HillsdonM.PanterJ.FosterC.JonesA. (2006). The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health, 120(12), 1127–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.007
22.
JorgensenL. J.EllisG. D.RuddellE. (2013). Fear perceptions in public parks: Interactions of environmental concealment, the presence of people recreating, and gender. Environment and Behavior, 45(7), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512446334
23.
KabischN.StrohbachM.HaaseD.KronenbergJ. (2016). Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecological Indicators, 70, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.029
24.
KaczynskiA. T.BesenyiG. M.StanisS. A. W.KoohsariM. J.OestmanK. B.BergstromR.PotwarkaL. R.ReisR. S. (2014). Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0146-4
25.
KaczynskiA. T.HendersonK. A. (2007). Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 29(4), 315–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865
26.
KaczynskiA. T.PotwarkaL. R.SmaleB. J. A.HavitzM. E. (2009). Association of Parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: Variations by gender and age. Leisure Sciences, 31(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400802686045
27.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. CUP Archive.
28.
KimJ.NichollsS. (2016). Using geographically weighted regression to explore the equity of public open space distributions. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(2), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2016-v48-i2-6539
29.
KimJ.WonY.KimY.CorleyE. (2025). Preferring local over non-local parks? Green space visit patterns by urban residents in desert cities, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning, 256, 105292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105292
30.
KimY.ChunY. (2019). Revisiting environmental inequity in Southern California: Does environmental risk increase in ethnically homogeneous or mixed communities?Urban Studies, 56(9), 1748–1767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018803227
31.
KimY.CorleyE. A.WonY.KimJ. (2023). Green space access and visitation disparities in the phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 237, 104805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104805
32.
KronenbergJ.HaaseA.ŁaszkiewiczE.AntalA.BaravikovaA.BiernackaM.DushkovaD.FilčakR.HaaseD.IgnatievaM.KhmaraY.NiţăM. R.OnoseD. A. (2020). Environmental justice in the context of urban green space availability, accessibility, and attractiveness in postsocialist cities. Cities, 106, 102862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102862
33.
LiangY.YinJ.PanB.LinM. S.MillerL.TaffB. D.ChiG. (2022). Assessing the validity of mobile device data for estimating visitor demographics and visitation patterns in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 317, 115410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115410
34.
Loukaitou-SiderisA.Levy-StormsL.ChenL.BrozenM. (2016). Parks for an aging population: Needs and preferences of low-income seniors in Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(3), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1163238
35.
MoranM. R.RodríguezD. A.Cotinez-O’RyanA.MirandaJ. J. (2020). Park use, perceived park proximity, and neighborhood characteristics: Evidence from 11 cities in Latin America. Cities, 105, 102817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102817
36.
Morello-FroschR.PastorM.PorrasC.SaddJ. (2002). Environmental justice and regional inequality in southern California: Implications for future research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Suppl. 2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110s2149
37.
MowenA. J.ConferJ. J. (2003). The relationship between perceptions, distance, and socio-demographic characteristics upon public use of an urban “in-fill.”Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(3), Article 3. https://js.sagamorepub.com/index.php/jpra/article/view/1499
38.
MullenbachL. E.LarsonL. R.FloydM. F.MarquetO.HuangJ.-H.AlbericoC.HippJ. A. (2021). Neighborhood built environment impacts park use of diverse, low-income mothers with their children. Journal of Healthy Eating and Active Living, 1(3), 108–120.
39.
National Park Service. (2018). Healthy Parks Healthy People 2018–2023 Strategic Plan.
40.
Natural England. (2023). Green Infrastructure Standards for England Summary.
41.
NelsonJ. R.GrubesicT. H.MillerJ. A.ChamberlainA. W. (2021). The equity of tree distribution in the most ruthlessly hot city in the United States: Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 59, 127016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127016
42.
NelsonJ. R.WonY.KimJ.StuhlmacherM.KimY. (2024). Is the grass greener or the water bluer? Drivers of local park visitation patterns in Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 95, 128325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128325
43.
NesbittL.MeitnerM. J.GirlingC.SheppardS. R. J.LuY. (2019). Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 181, 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007
44.
NeuvonenM.SievänenT.TönnesS.KoskelaT. (2007). Access to green areas and the frequency of visits – A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.003
45.
OrdK.MitchellR.PearceJ. (2013). Is level of neighbourhood green space associated with physical activity in green space?International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-127
46.
OshanT. M.LiZ.KangW.WolfL. J.FotheringhamA. S. (2019). mgwr: A Python implementation of multiscale geographically weighted regression for investigating process spatial heterogeneity and scale. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8060269
ParkK. (2020). Park and neighborhood attributes associated with park use: An observational study using unmanned aerial vehicles. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 518–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518811418
49.
Rey GozaloG.Barrigón MorillasJ. M.Montes GonzálezD. (2019). Perceptions and use of urban green spaces on the basis of size. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 46, 126470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126470
50.
Reyes-RiverosR.AltamiranoA.De La BarreraF.Rozas-VásquezD.VieliL.MeliP. (2021). Linking public urban green spaces and human well-being: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 61, 127105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127105
RigolonA.BrowningM.JenningsV. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.026
53.
RigolonA.FlohrT. L. (2014). Access to parks for youth as an environmental justice issue: Access inequalities and possible solutions. Buildings, 4(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings4020069
54.
RomoliniM.RyanR. L.SimsoE. R.StraussE. G. (2019). Visitors’ attachment to urban parks in Los Angeles, CA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.015
55.
RossiS. D.ByrneJ. A.PickeringC. M. (2015). The role of distance in peri-urban national park use: Who visits them and how far do they travel?Applied Geography, 63, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.008
56.
SchipperijnJ.BentsenP.TroelsenJ.ToftagerM.StigsdotterU. K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.12.002
57.
SchipperijnJ.CerinE.AdamsM. A.ReisR.SmithG.CainK.ChristiansenL. B.DyckD.van GidlowC.FrankL. D.MitášJ.PrattM.SalvoD.SchofieldG.SallisJ. F. (2017). Access to parks and physical activity: An eight country comparison. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.010
58.
ShanahanD. F.BushR.GastonK. J.LinB. B.DeanJ.BarberE.FullerR. A. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 28551. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28551
59.
SisterC.WolchJ.WilsonJ. (2010). Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal, 75(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9303-8
60.
SpotswoodE. N.BenjaminM.StoneburnerL.WheelerM. M.BellerE. E.BalkD.McPhearsonT.KuoM.McDonaldR. I. (2021). Nature inequity and higher COVID-19 case rates in less-green neighbourhoods in the United States. Nature Sustainability, 4(12), 1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00781-9
61.
ToftagerM.EkholmO.SchipperijnJ.StigsdotterU.BentsenP.GrønbækM.RandrupT. B.Kamper-JørgensenF. (2011). Distance to green space and physical activity: A Danish national representative survey. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8(6), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.6.741
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year [Dataset].
64.
van den BergM.van PoppelM.van KampI.AndrusaityteS.BalsevicieneB.CirachM.DanileviciuteA.EllisN.HurstG.MastersonD.SmithG.Triguero-MasM.UzdanaviciuteI.WitP.de MechelenW.van GidlowC.GrazulevicieneR.NieuwenhuijsenM. J.KruizeH.MaasJ. (2016). Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four European cities. Health & Place, 38, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.01.003
65.
WallnerP.KundiM.ArnbergerA.EderR.AllexB.WeitensfelderL.HutterH.-P. (2018). Reloading pupils’ batteries: Impact of green spaces on cognition and wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061205
66.
WheelerD.TiefelsdorfM. (2005). Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. Journal of Geographical Systems, 7(2), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-005-0155-6
67.
WolchJ.WilsonJ. P.FehrenbachJ. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography, 26(1), 4–35. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.1.4
68.
XuC.HaaseD.PribadiD. O.PauleitS. (2018). Spatial variation of green space equity and its relation with urban dynamics: A case study in the region of Munich. Ecological Indicators, 93, 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.024
69.
ZhangX.MelbourneS.SarkarC.ChiaradiaA.WebsterC. (2020). Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?Urban Studies, 57(16), 3402–3420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020902739
70.
ZhouC.AnY.ZhaoJ.XueY.FuL. (2022). How do mini-parks serve in groups? A visit analysis of mini-park groups in the neighbourhoods of Nanjing. Cities, 129, 103804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103804
