Healthy Development Measurement Toolkit

Indicator PI.5.c Proportion of public parks receiving a Park Evaluation Score of 95% or more

Download PDF map.

Data Source

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

SF Parks Maintenance Standards: Quarterly Inspection Results: http://sfrecpark.org/ParkMaintenanceStandardsAndScores.aspx

Map and table data are presented by planning neighborhood. 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.pdf

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

Explanation and Limitations

The neighborhood assignment for each park is based on geographical location, determined by the mean center, and is not based on qualitative, cultural, or political association with a particular neighborhood.

In November 2003, San Francisco voters passed Proposition C, which requires the City to establish standards for street, sidewalk, and park maintenance; regular, publicly available evaluation of city parks; and an annual audit of SF Parks and Recreation maintenance and cleaning performance. The same year, the Neighborhood Parks Council initiated Parkscan, a community-initiated, web-based reporting system that tracks maintenance conditions in San Francisco's parks and playgrounds.

The following year, the SF Recreation and Parks Department developed a Park Maintenance Standards Manual and Evaluation Form which is used to evaluate the physical features of San Francisco and create a general index of park conditions across the city. The evaluation also measures the condition of existing facilities compared to developed standards. It does not define what should be provided or the lack of certain amenities. The standards manual only defines the minimum expected conditions of existing facilities. These park standards are only applied to publicly owned park facilities. Privately owned park facilities do not receive the same review by SF Recreation ad Parks Department, although individuals could apply similar standards to the private parks using the ParkScan technology.

The following excerpt from the manual provides a description of the process:

"Elements that are used to rate park features are important ones as identified by the Department and the public at large. The manual purposefully avoids technical or scientific standards that are difficult to gauge"¦ The park features in the manual are reflective of the basic infrastructure of a San Francisco park. Although not all features will be present at each park, each feature constitutes a large part of a park's maintenance and labor costs. As a result, the periodic evaluation of these primary features provides an overall index of the park's condition. Additionally this index can be used to compare similar park types across the city. The standards were designed so that the majority of people would come up with the same conclusions about whether a park meets certain quality standards (increased reliability). It is the responsibility of the Recreation and Park Department to regularly evaluate each park using the established standards and to train its staff on the standards.

Park maintenance standards are classified among three categories: Landscaped and Hardscaped Areas, Recreational Areas, and Amenities and Structures. Within each category, a series of park features is evaluated. For example, the Landscaped and Hardscaped Areas category includes five features: (1) lawns, (2) ornamental gardens, shrubs, and ground covers, (3) trees, (4) hardscapes and trails, and (5) open space. Each park feature is evaluated using separate elements that apply to that specific feature. For example, lawns are evaluated on 7 elements: (1) cleanliness, (2) color, (3) density and spots, (4) drainage/flooded areas, (5) edged, (6) height/mowed, and (7) holes. The manual specifically describes and defines the quality standard(s) for each particular feature.

The form used to evaluate each park contains simple "yes" or "no" questions on whether each element meets the standards or not, as well as photos to illustrate a pass or fail level. After a park has been evaluated, the park will have an aggregate score for the number of standards that it meets. For example, if one tallies all the elements applicable to a park and the park met the standard for 90% of the elements, the park would then receive a score of 90%."

For more information, see: Park Maintenance Standards & Scores

Throughout the year, most parks receive at least three park evaluations, with larger parks, such as Golden Gate and John McLaren Park, receiving as many as forty evaluations in one year. The park's average evaluation score was calculated by summing all of the evaluation scores conducted throughout the year for the specific park, and dividing by the number of evaluations. The neighborhood average park evaluation score is the average of the individual park averages. These averages are NOT weighted by acreage or by number of evaluations conducted throughout the year.

There are parks owned by other agencies, such as the SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). These spaces were not included in the analysis of park evaluations because they are not owned by SF Parks and Recreation (SFPR). Peixotto Playground and States Street Playground are located in Corona Heights Park but are counted as separate parks because they received separate evaluation scores. Glen Park is considered a part of Glen Canyon Park and their evaluation scores are combined.

In 2009, the City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Controller - City Services Auditor released 2007-2008 Parks Annual Report: Park Scores Increased for Third Time and Differences Between District Averages Narrowed. The report explains an overall increase in park grades above last year, with a citywide average park grade of 86.2%.

Although the park evaluation scores provide a metric to compare the physical conditions of parks in San Francisco, other factors affect perceived quality, accessibility and usage of parks. These factors include: the presence of park amenities (such as benches, lighting, playing fields, trails, etc), the planned usage of the park (i.e. by seniors, youth, dogs, etc), the type of terrain (steepness, openness, presence of trees, etc), perceived and actual safety, park accessibility by foot, bicycle or public transportation, the hours of operation, etc.

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Investment in improving the quality of park grounds and facilities can encourage more frequent use. A 2009 study objectively surveyed the number of park visitors in two San Francisco parks both before and after significant renovations to the playfields, landscaping, lighting, and picnic areas. The researchers observed a 5 fold increase in the number of youth visitors and a 7 fold increase in the number of adult and senior visitors after the renovation. Similarly, there was a dramatic increase in the number of moderately and vigorously active park visitors after the renovations compared to before the renovations.^a

The physical conditions/quality of a park can influence usage by neighborhood residents as well as affect actual and perceived park safety (which subsequently affects usage). Access to usable green space and community recreational facilities promotes community engagement, physical activity, and social cohesion.