The economic benefits of parks are becoming better understood, and park advocates are using the notion that green spaces are drivers of economic growth to bring more people on board to park plans. It seems that everyone is utilizing the idea that the creation of great parks is validated because they will pay for themselves. With revenue generation as a motivating factor, parks are planned with more rigor and implemented at a faster pace than they would otherwise be. However, there is a catch.
Those interested in making a profit from public parks will create them for people who can bring in money. Parks will be aimed at increasing tourism, attracting residents with high income, and complementing potential or current business owners in proximate areas. They won’t serve everyone, and they likely won’t prioritize a healthy environment. This is because the kind of economic benefits that are most easily measured and often most appealing to those in positions of power are related to parks as drivers of economic development.
For example, city managers and community development professionals would likely be interested in the way parks can increase property values and attract new, younger populations to an area. Economic development departments like to hear about how greenways attract new businesses, grow sports industries, attract tourists, create opportunities for branding, and increase spending in nearby businesses. City council members like the headlines and photo ops that come with all of this.
Park proponents often want parks for their social and environmental benefits, but knowing other interested parties, they include economic rationale in their arguments. Sort of like, ‘this park would really benefit nearby residents and would be an important part of shoreline restoration, and, it’s really in your interest, because the city will get a good ROI.’
The pitch sounds great, but this type of rhetoric reifies the notion that parks must be directly profitable in order for investment in them to be justified.
This implies three harmful notions:
It is possible for parks to be broken down into measurable parts that show its value.
This myth goes against what anyone who understands complex systems knows: a high functioning green space has its individual components working together to provide overlapping benefits, many of which are immeasurable. Think about trees for example, they provide habitats that promote biodiversity, canopies that collect stormwater and reduce heat island effects1. They also have been shown to increase feelings of awe and increase altruistic behavior in people near them2. These functions are definitely worth a lot, but they are difficult to measure. They also aren’t anything economic development is interested in.
Parks cannot be broken apart, quantified, and valued accurately in neoliberal terms. Putting a dollar sign on their worth based on flawed, inappropriate measures sells them short and misconstrues their purpose.
Parks should be profitable (we should value a park based on how much we measure its quantifiable economic benefits).
If one of the important reasons we are investing in parks is that it has economic benefits, then a park’s success will be measured by that standard. It will be evaluated based on tax revenues and spending dollars, not on how it supports people and the outdoor environment. This affects how it is designed, maintained, and programmed. You may see programs that target unique interests or specific demographics cut in favor of those that draw a larger crowd. You may see more manicured landscapes that give an exclusive, tourist destination vibe but add less value to the ecosystem. Art and furnishings may be polished and pretty, but they won’t speak to the locals who no longer feel welcomed and nourished by the space.
I could go on about this point, because it leads to social injustice in the park space in many different ways. I have heard those in a few different localities say that gentrification is a sign to some in city governments as a sign of success of a greenway, because it means that they will collect higher income and sales taxes. There are plenty of case studies that describe planning around proposed greenways that would price long term residents out, partly because the park project is intended to be a money-maker3.
Parks should serve social and environmental goals first. Economic health should be a supporting part of that conversation. Tourism, sports industries, and workforce attraction can be an exciting and thriving parks and greenway system. The key is for those goals not to override the ones that directly support residents. Economic development needs to get out of the driver’s seat.
Parks are not an essential service.
So, if parks are meant to be attractions or things that support but are not necessary for business development, then logic follows that they are not essential to society. Rather than being a part of civic infrastructure that is critical to human health and wellness, like social services or schools, they get placed in the ‘nice-to-have’ category. This makes their budget easier to cut and their meaning to residents easier to diminish. This is one reason many neighborhood parks and the programming that goes along with them has changed so drastically in the last fifty years.
Parks are essential. We need them to be hubs of social support for all populations, to lift up and enhance our natural environments that our air, water, and food systems depend upon. We need them in order to have a healthy community, and when we invest more into them, we will get more out of them.
Change the Narrative
When you are involved in public planning of a space, demand that its social and environmental services are at the forefront of the conversation. Show up to council meetings, and remind your leaders that parks are essential and should be funded as so. Try also to challenge yourself to rethink what is valuable about your parks, and use and improve your parks, on whatever level you can, in the way that you would like to see them working for your community.
Speaking (and thinking) the language that reinforces parks as space for community building gives the power back to the land and the locals.
For further reading:
Alexander, C. & McDonald, C. (2014). Urban forests: The value of trees in the City of Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/UrbanForests.pdf
Keltner, D. (2009). Born to Be Good: The science of a meaningful life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Brownlow, A. (2011). Between rights and responsibilities: Insurgent performance in an invisible landscape. Environment and Planning, 43, 1268-1286.doi:10.1068/a436
Curran, W. & Hamilton, T. (Eds.). (2018). Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification. London: Routeledge
Immergluck, D., & Balan, T. (2018). Sustainable for whom? Green urban development, environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Geography, 39(4), 546562. doi:10.1080/02723638.2017.1360041
Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2018). “We’re not in the business of housing:” Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities, 81, 71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.016
That would be a courageous move forward.
In urban areas, parks would make a huge difference in the balance of people's lives. So many live in apartments, condos, or high-rise buildings with little to no opportunities to connect with nature. Parks provide recreation and peace of mind. I recently moved to a less-populated area so nature is more accessible, but a place to go and sit or walk outside would be nice.