Does Size Matter? Understanding How Park Size Impacts Experience and Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks

Background/Question/Methods

: Public parks provide a variety of vital benefits for urban residents, or ecosystem services. Urban parks provide spaces for recreation and to relax, as well as providing cooling benefits and habitats for flora and fauna. As cities expand, it is critical to better understand how parks are used and the benefits they provide, as well as impacts on peoples’ place attachment and well-being, to better inform cities investment strategies for providing adequate and accessible parks. Little is known about how seasonal differences may impact benefits and disservices of parks. Additionally, significant inequality persists regarding amounts of green space. In this context, the role that small parks—called pocket parks—can play to redress inequality and provide benefits at a relatively low cost is an important question. We conducted on-the ground rapid surveys with park users, along with environmental observations and assessments, in six New York City parks of varying sizes—pocket parks, medium sized community parks, and large forested parks. Over four seasons, we surveyed over 800 individuals about their park usage, subjective well-being and place attachment, and perceived ecosystem services and disservices. We compare survey responses from diverse park users by season, park size, and ecological characteristics.

Results/Conclusions

: Our preliminary results show that: 1) Park size impacts uses, users of the park, and perceived ecosystem services and disservices and 2) Vegetation, maintenance, and size strongly influence place attachment. For example, when asked what they like and dislike about the park, over 30% of pocket park users reported liking the vegetation, and related perceived services provided by the vegetation, while only 24% and 23% of respondents from community and forested parks reported vegetation as an important attribute. On the other hand, pocket parks had the lowest mean attachment at (3.6 on scale of 1-5 +/- 0.09) while forested areas had the highest mean attachment (4.3 +/- 0.08). Pocket park users were also significantly more likely to report dislikes and perceived disservices related to non-domestic fauna (e.g., rats, birds, mosquitos) than did users of community and forested areas. Given land and budget constraints, it is often not feasible for cities to construct large forested areas. While not a perfect fix, with relatively low cost and flexibility in placement, pocket parks offer many benefits and become a good option for cities, but must be designed to meet specific community needs and avoid unintended consequences like gentrification.