To ensure equity in the provisioning of urban green spaces, both how green spaces are distributed (i.e., access) as well as whether residents are utilizing them (i.e., use) needs to be considered simultaneously. Yet, few green space equity studies have considered both access and use together, and the fragmented literature provides only a partial view of each. This disconnection partly lies in challenges in integrating disparate “access” and “use” datasets. Using the Phoenix-Mesa urbanized area in Arizona as a case study, we present the conceptual and data challenges we have encountered when linking park access using the Trust for Public Land dataset with park usage measured from large scale human mobility datasets (SafeGraph, now Advan). We then show how the choices of data integration can affect findings of green space equity in the study area. In this paper, we enumerate the data and analytical issues encountered, illustrate research opportunities that the data integration provides for green space equity analyses, and discuss the implications of our findings for equitable environmental planning and policy.
AnselinL (2005) Exploring Spatial Data with GeoDaTM: A Workbook. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science.
2.
AragonNUStuhlmacherMSmithJP, et al. (2019) Urban agriculture’s bounty: contributions to Phoenix’s sustainability goals. Environmental Research Letters14(10): 105001.
3.
BeasleyWJThomasASSloggyMR, et al. (2024) Recreational response patterns by sociodemographic groups in a pandemic. Leisure/Loisir1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2024.2399610
4.
Bedimo-RungALMowenAJCohenDA (2005) The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine28(2): 159–168.
5.
BrowningMHEMRigolonAMcAnirlinO, et al. (2022) Where greenspace matters Most: a systematic review of urbanicity, greenspace, and physical health. Landscape and Urban Planning217: 104233.
6.
CampbellLKSvendsenESSontiNF, et al. (2016) A social assessment of urban parkland: analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy62: 34–44.
ChenBWuSSongY, et al. (2022) Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of global north and global south. Nature Communications13(1): 4636.
CohenDAMarshTWilliamsonS, et al. (2010) Parks and physical activity: why are some parks used more than others?Preventive Medicine50(SUPPL): S9–S12.
11.
CorleyEAAhnJJKimY, et al. (2018) Conceptualizing lenses, dimensions, constructs, and indicators for urban Park quality. Environmental Justice11(8): 208–221.
12.
CuttsBBDarbyKJBooneCG, et al. (2009) City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: an integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to walkable streets and park access. Social Science & Medicine69(9): 1314–1322.
13.
DassSO’BrienDTRisteaA (2023) Strategies and inequities in balancing recreation and COVID exposure when visiting green spaces. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science50(5): 1161–1177.
14.
GasconMTriguero-MasMMartínezD, et al. (2016) Residential green spaces and mortality: a systematic review. Environment International86: 60–67.
15.
Giles-CortiBBroomhallMHKnuimanM, et al. (2005) Increasing walking. American Journal of Preventive Medicine28(2): 169–176.
16.
HaraguchiMNishinoAKodakaA, et al. (2022) Human mobility data and analysis for urban resilience: a systematic review. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science49(5): 1507–1535.
17.
HoC-HSasidharanVElmendorfW, et al. (2005) Gender and ethnic variations in urban Park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research37(3): 281–306.
18.
HoffimannEBarrosHRibeiroA (2017) Socioeconomic inequalities in green space quality and accessibility—evidence from a southern european city. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health14(8): 916.
19.
JarvisIGergelSKoehoornM, et al. (2020) Greenspace access does not correspond to nature exposure: measures of urban natural space with implications for health research. Landscape and Urban Planning194: 103686.
20.
JayJHeykoopFHwangL, et al. (2022) Use of smartphone mobility data to analyze city park visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Landscape and Urban Planning228(July): 104554.
21.
KangYGaoSLiangY, et al. (2020) Multiscale dynamic human mobility flow dataset in the U.S. during the COVID-19 epidemic. Scientific Data7(1): 390.
KimYCorleyEAWonY, et al. (2023) Green space access and visitation disparities in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning237: 104805.
24.
KimJWonYKimY, et al. (2025) Preferring local over non-local parks? Green space visit patterns by urban residents in desert cities, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning256: 105292.
25.
LiZNingHJingF, et al. (2024) Understanding the bias of Mobile location data across spatial scales and over time: a comprehensive analysis of SafeGraph data in the United States. PLoS One19(1): e0294430.
26.
LiangYYinJPanB, et al. (2022) Assessing the validity of mobile device data for estimating visitor demographics and visitation patterns in yellowstone national park. Journal of Environmental Management317: 115410.
27.
LinBBFullerRABushR, et al. (2014) Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS One9(1): e87422.
28.
MacedoJHaddadMA (2016) Equitable distribution of open space: using spatial analysis to evaluate urban parks in Curitiba, Brazil. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design43(6): 1096–1117.
NelsonJRWonYKimJ, et al. (2024) Is the grass greener or the water bluer? Drivers of local park visitation patterns in phoenix, Arizona. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening95: 128325.
31.
NesbittLMeitnerMJGirlingC, et al. (2019) Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning181: 51–79.
32.
NicolettiLSirenkoMVermaT (2023) Disadvantaged communities have lower access to urban infrastructure. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science50(3): 831–849.
RigolonA (2016) A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: a literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning153: 160–169.
35.
RossiSDByrneJAPickeringCM (2015) The role of distance in peri-urban national park use: who visits them and how far do they travel?Applied Geography63: 77–88.
SikorskaDŁaszkiewiczEKrauzeK, et al. (2020) The role of informal green spaces in reducing inequalities in urban green space availability to children and seniors. Environmental Science & Policy108: 144–154.
38.
SongYHuangBCaiJ, et al. (2018) Dynamic assessments of population exposure to urban greenspace using multi-source big data. The Science of the total environment634: 1315–1325.
39.
SpotswoodENBenjaminMStoneburnerL, et al. (2021) Nature inequity and higher COVID-19 case rates in less-green neighbourhoods in the United States. Nature Sustainability4(12): 1092–1098.
40.
StuhlmacherMKimY (2024) The unequal connectivity of parks and tree canopy in 10 U.S. cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening96: 128332.
41.
SundevallEPJanssonM (2020) Inclusive parks across ages: multifunction and urban open space management for children, adolescents, and the elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(24): 9357.
42.
TaylorLHochuliDF (2017) Defining greenspace: multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning158: 25–38.
VaughanCAColabianchiNHunterGP, et al. (2018) Park use in low-income urban neighborhoods: who uses the parks and why?Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine95(2): 222–231.
45.
WeiHHuangXWangS, et al. (2023) A data-driven investigation on park visitation and income mixing of visitors in New York city. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science50(3): 796–813.
WuLKimSKLinC (2022) Socioeconomic groups and their green spaces availability in urban areas of China: a distributional justice perspective. Environmental Science & Policy131: 26–35.
48.
ZhaoHMaillouxBJCookEM, et al. (2023) Change of urban park usage as a response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Scientific Reports13(1): 19324.
49.
ZieslerPSPetteboneD (2018) Counting on visitors: a review of methods and applications for the national park service’s visitor use statistics program. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration36(1): 39–55.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
