Comparing methods for measuring park access and equity using US census microdata in metropolitan Miami

IF 4 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Applied Geography Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103579
Timothy W. Collins , Marco Lorenzo Allain , Sara E. Grineski , Alessandro Rigolon
{"title":"Comparing methods for measuring park access and equity using US census microdata in metropolitan Miami","authors":"Timothy W. Collins ,&nbsp;Marco Lorenzo Allain ,&nbsp;Sara E. Grineski ,&nbsp;Alessandro Rigolon","doi":"10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Knowledge from prior park equity studies has been limited by differences in the spatial analytic techniques applied to measure park accessibility, a lack of systematic methods comparisons, and overreliance on aggregated spatial data. Our study addresses these issues using individual-level, restricted-access US Census American Community Survey microdata (<em>n</em> = 339,000) from 2015 to 2019 to compare (a) alternative techniques for measuring access to park space and (b) how those measurement techniques affect inferences regarding patterns of inequity. It applies spatial analytic techniques to generate four park area per capita measures—one gold standard measure at the census block level and three widely-used measures at the census tract level in metropolitan Miami, USA—and compares the four methods using multiple analyses. The four methods generate somewhat dissimilar park accessibility values for individual residents. Bivariate analyses indicate that racially/ethnically minoritized or lower socioeconomic status people have less park accessibility than people from more advantaged groups, no matter the measure used. Multivariable models for each park accessibility measure yield largely dissimilar results regarding associations with social indicators, with consistent results for only two social indicators: Hispanic/Latino and older (&gt;64 years) people have less park area per capita relative to non-Hispanic White and middle-aged (18–64 years) people, respectively. Findings suggest that advanced, fine-scale spatial analytic techniques should be applied to accurately characterize park accessibility for academic research and decision-making about parks. Findings also highlight the need to increase park space access for marginalized groups in metropolitan Miami.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48396,"journal":{"name":"Applied Geography","volume":"178 ","pages":"Article 103579"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Geography","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622825000748","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Knowledge from prior park equity studies has been limited by differences in the spatial analytic techniques applied to measure park accessibility, a lack of systematic methods comparisons, and overreliance on aggregated spatial data. Our study addresses these issues using individual-level, restricted-access US Census American Community Survey microdata (n = 339,000) from 2015 to 2019 to compare (a) alternative techniques for measuring access to park space and (b) how those measurement techniques affect inferences regarding patterns of inequity. It applies spatial analytic techniques to generate four park area per capita measures—one gold standard measure at the census block level and three widely-used measures at the census tract level in metropolitan Miami, USA—and compares the four methods using multiple analyses. The four methods generate somewhat dissimilar park accessibility values for individual residents. Bivariate analyses indicate that racially/ethnically minoritized or lower socioeconomic status people have less park accessibility than people from more advantaged groups, no matter the measure used. Multivariable models for each park accessibility measure yield largely dissimilar results regarding associations with social indicators, with consistent results for only two social indicators: Hispanic/Latino and older (>64 years) people have less park area per capita relative to non-Hispanic White and middle-aged (18–64 years) people, respectively. Findings suggest that advanced, fine-scale spatial analytic techniques should be applied to accurately characterize park accessibility for academic research and decision-making about parks. Findings also highlight the need to increase park space access for marginalized groups in metropolitan Miami.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Geography
Applied Geography GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.00%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: Applied Geography is a journal devoted to the publication of research which utilizes geographic approaches (human, physical, nature-society and GIScience) to resolve human problems that have a spatial dimension. These problems may be related to the assessment, management and allocation of the world physical and/or human resources. The underlying rationale of the journal is that only through a clear understanding of the relevant societal, physical, and coupled natural-humans systems can we resolve such problems. Papers are invited on any theme involving the application of geographical theory and methodology in the resolution of human problems.
期刊最新文献
Linking perceptions of ecological restoration projects’ impacts on ecosystem services and human well-being for achieving regional sustainability Editorial Board Comparing methods for measuring park access and equity using US census microdata in metropolitan Miami Resilience reemerged in sustainable development goals: A perspective on easing COVID-19 restrictions in China Identifying concentrations of overlapping environmental & economic insecurity in Los Angeles County
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1