Indicator PI.5.a Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood or regional park

PI.5.a Proportion of population within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood or regional park

Download PDF map.

Data Source

List of parks from San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks, 2008.

Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. Spring 2007 Update: Current Year Estimates. Methodology available at: http://www.appliedgeographic.com/library.html.

Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.

Map data is presented at the level of the census tract, which was calculated by assigning census block data to census tracts based on spatial location. The map also includes planning neighborhood names, in the vicinity of their corresponding census tracts.

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. While planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas than census tracts, census tracts do not always lie completely within a planning neighborhood. SFDPH used ArcGIS software and a 'centroids within' methodology to convert census blocks to geographic mean center points. We then assigned census blocks to planning neighborhoods based on the spatial location of those geographic mean center points and calculated the planning neighborhood totals for the table.

Detailed information regarding geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:

http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.September_2009.pdf

http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php

Explanation and Limitations

The percentage of population within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood or regional park is calculated by dividing the total population within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood or regional park in a specific neighborhood and dividing it by the total population in that neighborhood.

Parks included in the map are owned and maintained by the San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation, however other open spaces are managed by the Port Authority, Public Utility Commission, Municipal Railway, and the Department of Public Works. Parks that are privately owned and maintained are also not included in this map.

This map does not include mini parks or civic plazas/squares to illustrate the number of parks with more than 0.5 acres of land. The neighborhood assignment for each park is determined by the mean center.

The San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation define a Neighborhood Park as "a park typically varying in size from 0.5 acre to 30 acres, serving a neighborhood or several neighborhoods; could be a developed park or playground with a range of facilities, such as a recreation center, clubhouse or swimming pool, or undeveloped open space." A Regional Park is defined as "A park typically greater than 30 acres in size with a variety of park landscapes, facilities and programs for city residents, regional visitors, and tourists, or any park serving as a tourist destination of historical, cultural or architectural significance." (Recreation and Park Department Management Information System Division - data dictionary as of 6/21/04.)

According to the Quimby Act (California Code §66477), a city may require the dedication of land or the payment of fees to provide between three to five acres of park per area per 1,000 residents. If a city already has an average of at least 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the Act requires dedication of five acres of land per 1,000 residents or fees associated with this acreage.

A park classification system and a set of guidelines has been development by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) to identify park types and recreation opportunity for each type. In the past, the NRPA had a standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population but now focuses on existing uses and community needs rather than a hard number. The NRPA provides standards for a vast number of recreational activities and the number of units per population (e.g. Tennis – 1 court per 2,000 population; Soccer – 1 per 10,000 population).a

Some parks have sidewalk areas included, which may or may not accurately represent the area of the park. Future updated versions by SFRP will clean up the layer to match ground conditions. Relatedly, proximity is not the same as access. Many factors affect access to parks including the presence of major roads, highways, buildings and gates, perceived and actual safety, hours of access, quality of park grounds and facilities, transportation, cultural preferences, etc. This indicator, 1/4 mile proximity to a park, is just one element of many in assessing access to parks.

Different sources calculate and define open space differently. For example, what is "usable" open space, whether or not to include large "flagship", regional, and/or private parks. Flagship parks include: GGNRA, Presidio, Fort Mason, Ocean Beach, Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced, Fort Funston, Candlestick Park, Bayview-Hunters" Point Park and McLaren Park.

San Francisco currently does not require open space development or impact fees, or community benefits districts for parks, open space, or recreational facilities.

In 1974, San Francisco voters approved the Open Space Fund that set-aside 2.5 cents of every $100 annually of assessed property value for property acquisition, development and care of new parks. In 2000, voters renewed the Open Space Fund for another 30 years. Accessed on September 21, 2006: http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/DAP/AcquisitionPolicy.pdf

Thus far, 7 percent of the cumulative $334 million from this fund has been spent on acquisition of new park properties.

In 1986, San Francisco voters approved a Downtown Park Fund that taxed developers of new office buildings to generate new parks in dense downtown areas at no cost to city residents. Since its creation, the fund as garnered more than $9 million. A third source of funding for parks was created in 2000 with the passage of Proposition A, a $110 million bond for the purchase of property of development of new facilities. As noted by the Neighborhood Parks Council, "even though the bond measure included a capital plan, with most existing parks listed, there is no money earmarked for development of new parks." (see link to Green Envy below)

In December 2003, the Neighborhood Parks Council released a report titled Green Envy: Achieving Equity in Open Space, which highlights disparities in neighborhood access to quality parks and open space. The report provides additional maps and resources to examine proximity and accessibility of parks in San Francisco, as well as a critique of San Francisco's commitment to promoting open space. For more information, see: http://www.sfnpc.org/greenenvy

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Both the number of neighborhood parks in proximity to one's residence and the types of amenities at the park (i.e., lighting, sports fields) predict the duration of physical activity in children.b One review of studies showed that access to places for physical activity combined with outreach and education can produce a 48 percent increase in the frequency of physical activity.c Evidence also shows that contact or views of the natural environment can improve functioning in children with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and problem solving and cognitive function in people living in public housing.d,e More generally, living in proximity to green space is associated with reduced self-reported health symptoms, better self-rated health, and higher scores on general health questionnaires.f  Finally, children who live in close proximity to parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities tend to be more active compared to children who do not live near those facilities.g  Adolescents who engage in moderate physical activity five or more times a week are more likely to achieve an ‘A’ in math and science than their peers.h

  1. Mertes J and Hall J. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. 1996. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
  2. Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, Overton A, Evenson KR, Staten LK, Porter D, McKenzie TL, Catellier D. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):e1381-1389.
  3. Kahn EB. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2002;22:87-88.

  4. Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Coping With ADD: The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings. Environment and Behavior. 2001;33(1) 54-77.

  5. Kuo FE. Coping With Poverty Impacts of Environment and Attention in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior. 2001;33(1):5-34.

  6. Vries S, de Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenberg P. Natural environments - healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between green space and health. Environment and Planning. 2003;35:1717-1731.

  7. Bauman A, Bull F. Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in Adults and Children: A Review of Reviews. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.

  8. Nelson MC, Gordon-Larsen P. Physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns are associated with selected adolescent health risk behaviors. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1281-1290.