Urban Studies
Nasser1993
AnAnalysisofUrbanGreenspace_Robbins11.pdf
i | R o b b i n s
An Analysis of Urban Green Space in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Jared D. Robbins
Cleveland State University College of Urban Affairs
Submitted as a partial requirement for a Master of Arts in Environmental Studies
Cleveland, Ohio
May 2013
ii | R o b b i n s
Executive Summary
Urban green spaces perform many important functions for humanity. In urbanized areas,
parks remain the only natural asset and provide important environmental services. Such green
spaces provide valuable ecological and social benefits for the community including storm water
management, recreation, and an escape from the built city. This study investigates the state of
urban green spaces in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Using GIS, green space adequacy was measured
in terms of land area and population served. Furthermore, a comprehensive list of amenities at
the County’s municipal parks was created. It was found that the County is home to over 31,000
acres of green space, accounting for almost 11% of the County’s land area. Additionally, 42% of
the County’s population lives within walking distance of an urban green space.
iii | R o b b i n s
Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………... 1
1.1. Types of Green Space…………………………………………………………………… 2
1.2. Benefits of Green Space………………………………………………………………… 5
1.3. Costs of Green Space……………………………………………………………………. 9
1.4. Study Area…………………………………………………………………………...… 10
2. Methods……………………………………………………………………….…………….. 12
2.1. Mapping and Data Sources…………………………………………………………….. 12
2.2. Determining Population within Walking Distance…………………………………….. 13
2.3. Calculating Green Space Size………………………………………………………..… 14
2.4. Municipal Park Conditions…………………………………………………………..… 16
3. Results………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
3.1. Green Space Size………………………………………………………………………. 17
3.2. Green Space by City…………………………………………………………………… 21
3.3. Walking Distance………………………………………………………………………. 27
3.4. Municipal Park Features……………………………………………………………….. 39
4. Discussion………………………………………………………………………………...… 39
4.1. Adequacy of Green Space……………………………………………………………... 39
4.2. The Case for Cuyahoga………………………………………………………………... 41
4.3. Future Park Financing………………………………………………………….………..42
4.4. Project Limits…………………………………………………………………………... 44
5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..…… 45
6. References……………………………………………………………………………………47
1 | R o b b i n s
1. Introduction
Around the world, urbanization continues to transform our landscapes and diminish
human interaction with natural ecosystems. The rate of this transformation has increased
dramatically, with urban areas currently expanding on average twice as fast as their populations
(Seto, Güneralp, & Hutyra, 2012). By 2030, it is estimated that global urban land area will
increase by 1.2 million square kilometers, tripling the amount of urban land present in the year
2000 (Seto et al., 2012). As this expansion continues, it is increasingly important to incorporate
green spaces into the urban landscape. Such spaces provide valuable ecosystem services while
improving the quality of life in urban environments (Cohen, Baudoin, Palibrk, Persyn, & Rhein,
2012).
Such services include providing permeable surfaces for groundwater recharge, heat island
mitigation, and removal of aerosolized particulates, which contribute to a healthier population
and overall better quality of life. Replacement of these services with human infrastructure would
be costly and inefficient. Green spaces also remain one of few linkages to the historic character
of the landscape. Preserving the landscape and biodiversity of a region is important for cultural
appeal, and parks provide a safe haven and habitat for wildlife in an increasingly urbanized
America.
Parks and other green spaces provide populations with recreation, education, and
aesthetic appeal. Recreation includes both active and passive activities, such as walking,
gardening, bird watching, and sports such as soccer, Frisbee, and catch. Schools throughout the
country use green spaces to teach children about nature, ecological systems such as the water and
nutrient cycles, and valuable skills such as navigation and farming. Additionally, urban green
2 | R o b b i n s
spaces provide a change of scenery and a pleasing buffer zone between residential and
commercialized or industrialized neighborhoods, providing aesthetic beauty and increasing
housing values. With rapid expansion and urban sprawl, parks and other green spaces remain
our last link to rural and pristine land, and will become even more important with continued
development.
1.1 Types of Green Space
The urban built environment is home to a variety of green spaces. Urban green spaces
exist on different scales and serve in different capacities. Small scale green spaces include street
medians, bioswales, and green roofs. Green spaces such as these make up urban “green
infrastructure,” and perform ecological functions such as storm water management (Stuart,
Gardner-Andrews, Hansen, & Grumbles, 2013). Large scale urban green spaces usually exist as
parks. While the word park is vernacular, it is quite difficult to define exactly what a park is.
According to Lee Springgate, “there is no standard, widely accepted definition of a park” (Lewis
& American Planning Association. Planning Advisory, 2008). In fact, even dictionaries cannot
agree on a definition. Merriam-Webster defines a park in the following ways: “1a. an enclosed
piece of ground stocked with game and held by royal prescription or grant; b. a tract of land that
often includes lawns, woodland, and pasture attached to a country house and is used as a game
preserve and for recreation; 2a. a piece of ground in or near a city or town kept for ornament and
recreation; b. an area maintained in its natural state as a public property (Merriam-Webster,
2013). Dictionary.com meanwhile lists parks as: “1. An area of land, usually in a largely natural
3 | R o b b i n s
state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set
apart, and managed by a city, state, or nation; 2. An enclosed area or a stadium used for sports; 3.
A considerable extent of land forming the grounds of a country house” (Dictionary.com, 2013).
In From Recreation to Re-creation, Lee Springgate proposes to identify parks through four
criteria instead of placing upon them a single definition (Lewis & American Planning
Association. Planning Advisory, 2008). In his words, a park: 1. is publicly accessible; 2. has
identifiable boundaries; 3. contributes to overall community aesthetics; and 4. provides a
community gathering place (Lewis & American Planning Association. Planning Advisory, 2008).
These criteria allow us to unify the vast assortment of parks under a single umbrella. In order to
classify the many types of parks, the National Recreation and Park Association developed the
following definitions as part of their Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines:
4 | R o b b i n s
Classification General Description Location Criteria Size Criteria
Mini-Park Used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs
Less than a ¼ mile distance in residential setting
Between 2500 sq. ft. and one acre in size
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood park remains the basic unit of the park system and serves as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. Focus is on informal active and passive recreation.
¼ to ½ mile distance and non-interrupted by non-residential roads and other physical barriers
5 acres is considered minimum size, 5 to 10 acres is optimal.
School-Park
Depending on circumstances, combining parks with school sites can fulfill the space requirements for other classes of parks, such as neighborhood, community, sports complex and special use.
Determined by location of school district property.
Variable-depends on function.
Community Park
Serves broader purpose than neighborhood park. Focus is on meeting community based recreation needs as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.
Determined by the quality and suitability of the site. Usually serves two or more neighborhoods and ½ to 2 mile distance.
As needed to accommodate desired uses usually between 30 and 50 acres.
Large Urban Park
Large urban parks serve a broader purpose than community parks and are used when community and neighborhood parks are not adequate to serve the needs of the community. Focus is on meeting community based recreational needs as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.
Determined by the quality and suitability of the site. Usually serves the entire community.
As needed to accommodate desired uses. Usually a minimum of 50 acres, with 75 or more acres being optimal.
Natural Resource Area
Lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, remnant landscapes, open space and visual aesthetics/buffering.
Resource availability and opportunity. Variable
Greenways Effectively tie park system components together to form a continuous park environment.
Resource availability and opportunity. Variable
Sports Complex
Consolidates heavily programmed athletic fields and associated facilities to larger and fewer strategically located throughout the community.
Strategically located community-wide facilities.
Determined by projected demand. Usually a minimum of 25 acres with 40 to 80 acres being optimal.
Special Use Covers a broad range of parks and recreation facilities oriented toward single-purpose use. Variable-dependent on specific use. Variable
Private Property
Parks and Recreation facilities that are privately owned yet contribute to the public park and recreation system.
Variable-dependent on specific use. Variable
Table 1: Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, taken from (Mertes et al., 1995) While the National Recreation and Park Association’s classification is by no means
exhaustible, it provides a basic framework for classifying parks around their size, use, and
design.
5 | R o b b i n s
1.2 Benefits of Green Spaces
As urbanization continues to spread around the globe, people are left with fewer and
fewer natural settings (Cohen et al., 2012). An increasing body of evidence has shown that this
decrease in green spaces is negatively impacting the urban way of life (Cohen et al., 2012).
Urban green spaces provide convenient recreation opportunities for urban citizens who may
otherwise have limited or no access to nature and nature-based recreation (Baur & Tynon, 2010).
The presence of such spaces has been shown to provide psychological benefits, health benefits,
improvement to urban biodiversity, and hydro-climactic regulation (Cohen et al., 2012). Baur
and Tynon argue that “community parks have the capacity to contribute not only to the physical
and mental well-being of urban dwellers but also have the capacity to contribute to social capital
generation leading to a broader contribution to overall community well-being (Baur & Tynon,
2010). In general the benefits of urban green spaces can be classified as economic benefits,
social benefits, and environmental benefits.
Estimating the economic value of urban green spaces is no easy feat. As public goods,
urban green spaces are not consumed and have no marketable pricing scheme. The history of
quantifying economic values of urban green spaces has a history as long as urban planning itself
(Tajima, 2003). Frederic Law Olmsted, the father of landscape architecture and planner of New
York’s Central Park and Boston’s Emerald Necklace, tracked the values of real estate
surrounding Central Park during its construction (Leinberger & Berens, 1997).
He found that by 1864, when the park was only half-finished, it had begun generating net revenue of $55,880. He also charted the average increase in property value in the three wards surrounding the park and in the city’s other wards. If the three wards around the park had increased in value 100 percent between 1856 and 1873, as did other wards throughout the city, in 1873 their appraised value would have been $53 million; instead,
6 | R o b b i n s
it was $236 million. Although Olmsted’s analysis was simple, the difference was striking (Leinberger & Berens, 1997).
Olmsted’s exercise in hedonic pricing displayed one of the earliest and most valuable methods of
calculating a park’s value. This property value approach to the valuation of urban green spaces
“assumes that the benefits associated with these amenities are capitalized into surrounding
property prices” (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005). Capturing surrounding property values reflects
the aggregate value of all locational advantages and disadvantages of a site, including both
positive and negative externalities (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005). In this manner, home prices
can provide a proxy measure of homeowners’ willingness to pay for amenities such as urban
green spaces, thus showing the green space’s value (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005). While urban
green spaces have been shown to increase surrounding property values, they also contribute
directly to the economy. “Research has shown that such amenities help attract new residents, as
well as leisure visitors and retirees, all of whom can have a substantial economic impact on the
area” (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005). Indeed, “the availability of an attractive parks and
recreation system can be a significant influence on the (re)location decisions” of many
businesses (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005). A recent study has shown that more cities recognize
the strategic advantage of providing urban amenities to attract skilled workers and firms, as
major cities compete for these crucial resources (Tajima, 2003). The attractiveness of such parks
can be seen with New York’s Central Park and Chicago’s Millennium Park, both of which are
visited by millions of tourists annually.
Urban green spaces are also increasingly important for the many ecological services they
provide. “These benefits vary over space and time according to changes in the urban
environment, its inhabitants, and their needs. Some benefits are easily expressed in dollars or
other values, while some are difficult to quantify using such measures but in the aggregate they
7 | R o b b i n s
are highly significant to urbanites (Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder, & Rowntree, 1992). Urban
trees “can contribute to energy conservation because they help to reduce the cost of heating and
cooling buildings. This is especially true in built urban environments, where the urban heat
island effect is prevalent. Urban heat islands are considered to be one of the major problems in
the 21st century posed to humankind as a result of urbanization (Rizwan, Dennis, & Liu, 2008).
Heat produced by urban structures as they consume energy and solar radiation increases
temperatures in urban areas, which leads to increased energy costs and in some cases severe
health problems. (Rizwan et al., 2008). Urban green spaces are integral to the mitigation of this
effect (Rizwan et al., 2008). Projections from computer simulations indicate that 100 million
mature trees in U.S. cities (three trees for every other single family home) could reduce annual
energy use by 30 billion kWh, saving about 2 billion dollars in energy costs (Dwyer et al., 1992).
Trees are also useful in extracting from the air harmful particulates such as ozone, carbon
monoxide, and sulfur dioxide (Dwyer et al., 1992). A study performed in Tucson, Arizona
projected an annual implied value of particulate matter control per tree of $4.16 (Dwyer et al.,
1992). Extrapolating this value for the number of trees in urban green spaces leads to a savings
in the millions of dollars. Without this natural pollutant removal, people would have to spend
millions of dollars annually to control these pollutants through vehicle maintenance, oxygenated
fuels, and street paving and sweeping activities (Dwyer et al., 1992). Vegetation in urban green
spaces can also mitigate storm water treatment costs, flooding damage, and water quality
problems (Dwyer et al., 1992). Savings in storm water management costs were valued at $0.18
per tree annually in Tucson, Arizona (Dwyer et al., 1992). This cost does not account for
additional savings from avoided storm water treatment costs (Dwyer et al., 1992). Urban green
spaces also provide valuable habitat for biodiversity. Recently, bees have been disappearing
8 | R o b b i n s
from around the country (Kasper, 2013). Honeybees are responsible for at least 90% of
commercial crop pollination (Allsopp, De Lange, & Veldtman, 2008). A recent study placed the
value of these pollination services for the deciduous fruit industry in the Western Cape of South
Africa at $358.4 million (Allsopp et al., 2008). Ecosystem services such as those provided by
bees and other animals are integral to the economy. Urban green spaces provide critical habitat
for these organisms in a world with increasingly fewer natural areas.
Recent research in diverse fields such as psychology, public health, psychiatry, biology,
recreation, and urban planning have shown that nature is “beneficial, perhaps even essential, to
human health and well-being” (Maller et al., 2008). Urban green spaces provide many social
benefits such as neighborhood and family development, and improved health and safety. Kuo et
al. suggest that “trees and greenery help build strong neighborhoods in which residents interact
more often, develop closer community ties, and feel safer (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005). In
areas with little to no greenery such as the central city, parks and other urban open spaces are
crucial for the development of social ties and citizen well-being. In highly developed areas,
these green spaces may provide the only interaction with nature that urban dwellers can readily
enjoy (Baur & Tynon, 2010). Kuo et al. found that “compared to residents living adjacent to
relatively barren spaces, individuals living adjacent to greener common spaces had more social
activities and more visitors, knew more of their neighbors, reported their neighbors were more
concerned with helping and supporting one another, and had stronger feelings of belonging”
(Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998). Contact with nature has also been shown to reduce
mental fatigue, relieve feelings of stress and arousal due to stress, and have positive effects on
mood (Kuo et al., 1998). “Medical, psychological, and recreation researchers have
acknowledged the restorative and stress reducing qualities of activities conducted in natural
9 | R o b b i n s
settings (Baur & Tynon, 2010). In fact, “hospital patients who could look out on trees and nature
from their windows recovered more quickly than those whose views were restricted to buildings
(Chiesura, 2004). Additionally, “local, convenient recreation spaces can provide opportunities
for healthy physical activities such as walking, sports activities, and imaginative and active play
for children (Baur & Tynon, 2010). An increasing body of evidence points to a lack of exercise
as a catalyst for childhood and adult obesity along with its associated diseases, highlighting the
importance of public open spaces (Baur & Tynon, 2010). With rising healthcare costs across the
country, urban green spaces play an important role in promoting healthy lifestyles and a healthy
community.
1.3 Costs of Green Spaces
Urban green spaces are not free of costs. As mentioned previously, parks lead to an
increase in value of their surroundings. While owners receive the effect of this value increase,
“renters may be displaced from [their] current residence because of the increased rent” (Tajima,
2003) Moreover, “in city centers where demand for land is high, open spaces are often subject to
development pressures (Tajima, 2003). The presence of parks removes this land from the market,
further increasing land costs and possibly infringing upon landowner rights. Additionally,
concern by local residents for safety “may compromise the ecological integrity of urban
greenways,” and “natural corridors may be perceived as unsafe” (Luymes & Tamminga, 1995).
Due to these issues, “many urban and suburban municipalities are reluctant to plan and manage
greenways that include natural environments and public use, reducing both the ecological and
social richness of these urban greenways” (Luymes & Tamminga, 1995).
10 | R o b b i n s
1.4 Study Area
This paper aims to investigate the state of urban green spaces in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Located on the southern shore of Lake Erie in Northeast Ohio, Cuyahoga County serves as a
regional shipping port and manufacturing and biomedical hub (Plus, 2013). The City of
Cleveland is the county seat and largest city in Cuyahoga County in terms of both land mass and
population. The County is home to the Cuyahoga River, which empties into Lake Erie in
downtown Cleveland. This junction of the Cuyahoga and Lake Erie has historical importance as
the origin for the Ohio and Erie Canal, which connected the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River.
The canal, which completed an inland water route between the East Coast and the Gulf of
Mexico, led to Cleveland and Cuyahoga County becoming one of the largest metropolitan areas
in the country (Canalway).
As of the 2010 Census, Cuyahoga County was the largest county in Ohio in terms of
population, with 1,280,122 people (Bureau). The county, which rests on approximately 460
square miles of land, is comprised of 59 municipalities, including 38 cities, 19 villages, and two
townships (County). As Ohio is a home-rule state, each of these municipalities is free to create
its own park system, with the exception of the two townships: Olmsted Township and Chagrin
Falls Township.
The County is also home to a large metropolitan park system named the Cleveland
Metropolitan Park District, or Cleveland Metroparks. The parks include recreation facilities for
a plethora of activities including archery, biking, boating, skiing, fishing, golf, horseback riding,
swimming, and hiking (Metroparks, 2013a). The District, the oldest park district in Ohio, was
11 | R o b b i n s
first conceived of in 1905 by William Stinchcomb who at the time served as Cleveland’s Chief
Engineer of Parks (Metroparks, 2013d). The system materialized in 1917 when the Ohio
General Assembly passed legislation which provided for “the conservation of natural resources
by the creation, development and improvement of park districts” (Metroparks, 2013a). As of
early 2013, the Cleveland Metroparks had grown to include 18 reservations over 22,218 acres of
land (Kutsko & Studniarz, 2012). The Metroparks currently owns land in 48 municipalities
including 41 in Cuyahoga County (Kutsko & Studniarz, 2012). The expansive system includes
rivers, lakes, beaches, and wilderness encircling the City of Cleveland in what has been called an
“Emerald Necklace.” Recently, the Metroparks have turned their attention toward completing
the “necklace,” hoping to preserve lands along Lake Erie (Kastelic). On April 22, 2013, the City
of Cleveland leased to the Metroparks 444 acres of land in five parks and a marina along 14
miles of Lake Erie shoreline (Atassi, 2013). This recent land acquisition is not reflected in the
above statistics.
Cuyahoga County is also home to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The Park became
a National Recreation Area on December 27, 1974, and a National Park on October 11, 2000
(Park, 2013). The only national park in Ohio, Cuyahoga Valley includes almost 33,000 acres in
Cuyahoga and neighboring Summit Counties (Park, 2013). Situated between the Cleveland and
Akron metropolitan area, Cuyahoga Valley National Park is one of the most visited national
parks in the United States, averaging around 2.5 million visitors a year (Park, 2013). The park
runs along the Cuyahoga River valley as well as the Ohio & Erie Canal (Service, 2012). It offers
over 125 miles of hiking, biking, and horseback riding trails, as well as a scenic railroad and five
information centers and museums (Service, 2012).
12 | R o b b i n s
The County is also home to an assortment of beautiful cemeteries and golf courses,
including the internationally renowned Lakeview Cemetery, burial place of President James A.
Garfield and oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller.
While Cuyahoga County is home to a significant number of urban green spaces, it is
important to determine whether these green spaces serve its population adequately. This paper
seeks to determine where green spaces exist in the county and what amenities these spaces
include. The paper then looks at where urban green spaces are most needed, and how such
spaces may be funded.
2. Methods
2.1 Mapping and Data Sources
In performing my analysis, I adapted the National Recreation and Park Association’s
park classifications to urban green space in Cuyahoga County. Lee Springgate’s criteria led me
to including the following classifications: campgrounds, cemeteries, conservation easements,
golf courses, and Metroparks, and Municipal Parks. An overarching “urban green spaces” layer
was also used. Cemeteries were included as they fill all four criteria proposed by Lee Springgate.
Cuyahoga County especially is home to many aesthetically pleasing cemeteries including Erie
Street Cemetery in downtown Cleveland and Lakeview Cemetery in Cleveland Heights. While
conservation easements do not necessarily meet all four criteria, all easements in Cuyahoga
County are part of a larger park system.
13 | R o b b i n s
To aggregate and analyze park data from around the County, I utilized ESRI’s ArcMap10
GIS program. All shapefiles were obtained from the Cuyahoga County Open Space Inventory,
obtained from Dan Meaney, GIS Manager for the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission. This
database contains geospatial data for all public spaces in Cuyahoga County including parks,
schools, and houses of religious worship. Park data was extracted from the Open Space
Inventory using the “CUR_LU1” and “CUR_LU2” fields. Within the “CUR_LU1” field, all
“parks” were selected and exported into a new shapefile. In a similar manner, campgrounds,
cemeteries, conservation easements, and golf courses were exported into their own respective
shapefiles. The parks shapefile was then further broken up into municipal parks, the Cleveland
Metroparks, and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The urban green space layer was created
by merging the seven park types. Population and race data was obtained on a block group scale
from the 2010 US Census (Bureau). Spatial maps of Cuyahoga County block groups and
municipalities were obtained from the US Census Cartographic Boundary Files (Census).
2.2 Determining Population within Walking Distance
To find what populations are served by parkland, population data from the 2010 US
Census was joined to a county block group map. This data included total population, as well as
population by race. A walking distance of ¼ mile was chosen based off of research performed
by the Fairfax County, Virginia Planning Commission TOD Committee on tolerable walking
distances (Fairfax County ). A ¼ mile buffer was composed around each of the seven park types
as well as the urban green space layer. For each park type, an area calculation was performed on
the block group shapefile and the walking distance buffer and block group shapefiles were
14 | R o b b i n s
unioned. Area calculations were performed on the unioned shapefile and area weighted
calculations were completed for each race and the total population to determine populations
within and outside the buffer. Summarizing this data by “F_ID” allowed populations within and
outside buffer to be found. These data were then collated and percent populations were
calculated in Microsoft Excel.
2.3 Calculating Green Space Size
To correct for discrepancies between park systems, park size was determined for all park
types using ArcMap software. An area calculation was performed for each park shapefile, and
this data was summarized and exported to Microsoft Excel. In this manner, parkland was
determined for each of the seven park types, as well as all urban green spaces. Theoretical and
actual urban green space was then calculated for each city.
To determine theoretical and actual parkland in each city, the amount of land in each city
had to be found. Using the block group shapefile, block groups within each municipality were
selected and exported as an independent municipality shapefile. For example, all block groups
within Bay Village were selected and exported as a new shapefile titled “Bay Village.” Once
this had been done for each city, these shapefiles were merged to give a single shapefile with all
59 municipalities. An area calculation was then performed to determine the amount of land in
each municipality. This data was summarized by city and exported to Microsoft Excel, where it
was converted from square feet into acres and square miles. Percent of the County contained in
each municipality was then determined by dividing the amount of land in each city by the
amount of land in the county.
15 | R o b b i n s
Theoretical urban green space was calculated by multiplying the total amount of urban
green space in Cuyahoga County by the percent of Cuyahoga County’s land in each city.
% 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 =
𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦
×100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦
= % 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 ×𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒
The actual amount of green space was then determined for each municipality. This was
done by performing a union between the urban green space layer and the municipalities layer.
An area calculation was again performed and summarized by municipality, yielding the amount
of parkland in each municipality. This data was exported to Microsoft Excel and corrected to
acres. Percent actual urban green space was determined in the following manner:
% 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 = 𝑈𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦
×100%
Percent difference between the actual and theoretical amounts of urban green space in each
municipality was then determined with the following equation:
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒
16 | R o b b i n s
2.4 Municipal Park Conditions
To determine some qualitative measure of service provided by individual municipal parks,
“features” at each park were determined. While some cities provided detailed information on
their park systems, others did not. In fact, numerous municipalities do not have parks
departments. Due to the large number of municipalities in the County with varied amounts of
information, data had to be collected first hand. Given time and weather constraints, traveling to
each individual park was not feasible. Instead, Google Earth’s satellite imagery was employed.
Prior to listing these features at each park, the Open Space Inventory had to be cleaned.
This was done by comparing the Open Space Inventory’s municipal park layer to Google
imagery. In this way, various parks were added or removed to get an accurate portrayal of
municipal parks in Cuyahoga County. Using Google Imagery, features of each park were
determined and concatenated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Features were identified as
passive recreation, active recreation, natural resources, or cultural sites. Each of these fields was
then further broken down as follows:
Passive Recreation Tables/Benches Pavilions/Gazebos Paths
Active Recreation
Playgrounds Tennis Courts LaCrosse Fields Track Basketball Courts Baseball Diamonds Football Fields Pools Volleyball Courts Soccer Fields Multipurpose Fields Skate Parks
Natural Resources Open Fields Wooded Areas
Water Features (streams, lakes, wetlands)
Beaches
Cultural Resources Includes statues, cultural gardens, music venues, historical sites, etc.
After determining park size and features, each municipal park was categorized. Parks were
initially classified solely by size using guidelines from the National Recreation and Park
17 | R o b b i n s
Association. Parks less than five acres were classified as “mini-parks.” Between five and 20
acres, parks were classified as “neighborhood parks.” The “community park” designation was
given to parks between 20 and 50 acres, and parks larger than 50 acres were categorized as
“large urban parks.” Parks with special features were then more accurately described in
accordance with their use. Sports fields and open areas near schools were reclassified as
“school-parks.” Areas solely containing natural resources such as woods, meadows, and
wetlands were reclassified as “natural resource areas.” Large open areas used solely for active
recreation were reclassified as “sports complexes,” with these parks usually adjoining recreation
centers. In accordance with National Recreation and Park Association guidelines, parks devoted
to a single use such as pools were reclassified as “special use” parks. Special designations were
also given to parks in downtown Cleveland, and parks owned by private entities, named
“downtown parks” and “private property,” respectively.
3. Results
3.1 Green Space Size
The majority of urban
green space, almost 55%, in
Cuyahoga County belongs to
the Cleveland Metroparks.
Altogether, this amounts to
over 17,000 acres of land, Table 2: Urban Green Spaces in Cuyahoga County by: a) acreage; b) percent of total green space and c) percent of County landmass.
Green Space Type Total Acreage Percent of Green Space
Percent of Cuyahoga County
Campgrounds 228.21 0.72% 0.08% Cemeteries 2,209.38 7.00% 0.76% CVNP 2,771.24 8.78% 0.95% Easements 134.85 0.43% 0.05% Golf Courses 4,370.71 13.85% 1.49% Metroparks 17,273.92 54.72% 5.90% Municipal Parks 4,577.34 14.50% 1.56% All Open Spaces 31,565.64 100.00% 10.79%
18 | R o b b i n s
Reservation Name Acreage Acacia Reservation 146.33 Bedford Reservation 2,269.26 Big Creek Reservation 713.70 Bradley Woods Reservation 773.50 Brecksville Reservation 3,336.78 Brookside Reservation and Zoo 301.24 Euclid Creek Reservation 350.19 Garfield Park Reservation 220.31 Huntington Reservation 98.77 Mill Stream Run Reservation 3,168.95 North Chagrin Reservation 1,141.47 Ohio and Erie Canal Reservation 355.19 Rocky River Reservation 2,567.04 South Chagrin Reservation 1,476.58 Washington Reservation 75.55 West Creek Reservation 279.08 Total Acreage 17,273.92
accounting for 5.9% of Cuyahoga County’s land area. Municipal parks and golf courses each
make up around 14% of the County’s urban green spaces and 1.5% of the County’s land. The
remaining urban green space categories amount to less than 1% of the land area. The largest
Metropark in the County is Brecksville Reservation at over 3,000 acres. This reservation,
entirely in the City of Brecksville, is home to seven glaciated gorges, Chippewa Creek, and two
golf courses (Metroparks, 2013b). The smallest
reservation is Washington Reservation at just 75
acres. This reservation, with pieces in Cleveland,
Cuyahoga Heights, and Newburgh Heights, is
home to a nine-hole golf course, the U.S.S. Maine
Memorial and American Legion Memorial, and
various sports fields and picnic shelters
(Metroparks, 2013c). The Metroparks
reservations average just over 1,000 acres with
four reservations exceeding 2,000 acres.
Cuyahoga County is home to only four campsites.
One of these sites, Crystal Springs, is mainly in Lorain County, with only 1.66 acres in
Cuyahoga. The largest campground in the
County is Hiram House, at 163 acres. This
site, located in Moreland Hills, is home to
numerous day camps, overnight camps, and
other recreation activities. Campgrounds in
the County average just over 75 acres (excluding Crystal Springs) and total just over 200 acres.
Campground Name Acreage Crystal Springs Campground 1.66 Pleasant Valley Park 18.32 Camp George Forbes 45.10 Hiram House Camp 163.14 Total 228.21
Table 3: Cleveland Metroparks acreage per Reservation.
Table 4: Campgrounds in Cuyahoga County. Only a fraction of Crystal Springs is in Cuyahoga, with the majority in neighboring Lorain County.
19 | R o b b i n s
Due to Cuyahoga County’s large number of independent municipalities, compiling a
comprehensive list of municipal parks was vital to determining the state of Cuyahoga’s green
spaces. Cemeteries account for just 0.76% of Cuyahoga’s landmass, and approximately 7% of
the County’s green space. Calvary Cemetery in Garfield Heights is the largest in the County at
over 300 acre. At just over half an acre, Parma Public Cemetery in nearby Parma is the smallest
cemetery in the County. The average cemetery size in the city is just over 36 acres, with an
extremely large standard deviation of 57 acres.
Cemetery Name Acreage Cemetery Name Acreage Acacia Park Cemetery Association 43.15 Lutheran Cemetery 22.35 Alger Cemetery 10.79 Monroe Cemetery 12.17 Beachwood Cemetery 4.78 Mount Olive Cemetery 48.44 Bedford Cemetery 15.20 Mt Sinai Cemetery 12.13 Brooklyn Heights Cemetery 66.03 North Royalton Cemetery 10.33 Brookside Park Cemetery 3.00 Parma Public Cemetery 0.55 Calvary Cemetery 307.86 Polish Catholic Cemetery 3.51 Cemetery 3.22 Ridge Rd Cemetery I 5.90 Center Cemetery 6.60 Ridge Rd Cemetery Ii 8.65 East Cleveland Cemetery 10.68 Riverside Cemetery 78.04 Erie St. Cemetery 8.87 Roselawn Cemetary 3.98 Euclid Cemetery 5.38 St. John'S Cemetery 11.57 Evergreen Cemetery 29.43 St. John'S Lutheran Cemetery 12.05 Evergreen Memorial Park Association 50.49 St. Joseph Cemetery 8.35 Fairview Cemetery 1.37 St. Mary'S Cemetery 7.40 Gates Mills North Cemetery 2.65 St. Paul'S Ukrainian Catholic Cemetery 30.17 Harvard Grove Cemetery 20.14 St. Theodosius Russian Orthodox Church 36.40 Highland Park Cemetery 127.20 Strongsville Cemetery 12.73 Hillcrest Memorial Cemetery 31.58 Sunset Memorial Park Cemetery 174.91 Holy Cross Cemetary 258.14 United Jewish Cemeteries 21.46 Holy Ghost Greek Catholic Cemetery 20.02 West Park Cemetery 82.82 Hungarian Cemetery 5.51 Whitehaven Memorial Park Cemetery 59.93 Jewish Cemetery 10.17 Woodland Cemetery 55.74 Knollwood Cemetery Association 85.94 Woodvale Union Cemetery 24.20 Lake View Cemetery 284.84 Workman'S Circle Cemetery 8.13 Lakewood Park Cemetery 44.40 Total 2,209.38 Table 5: County cemeteries by acreage.
20 | R o b b i n s
Golf courses in the County account for over 4,000 acres of land making up almost 14% of the
County’s urban green space. Highland Park at 352 acres is the largest course in the County,
while Hickory Nut Golf Club is located almost entirely in neighboring Lorain County, with less
than an acre in Cuyahoga County. Excluding Hickory Nut Golf Club, golf courses in Cuyahoga
County average 112 acres with a standard deviation of almost 90 acres. The Cleveland
Metroparks operate seven golf courses within their reservations which are not reflected in this
data. The Metropark’s Seneca Golf Course within Brecksville Reservation is reflected in this
data and excluded from the Metroparks acreage, a result of how they were categorized in the
Cuyahoga County Open Space Inventory. Cuyahoga’s municipal parks total over 4,500 acres
and average approximately 23 acres. Forest Hill Park in East Cleveland and Cleveland Heights
is by far the largest of the municipal parks totaling over 300 acres between the two cities. The
land for this enormous park was donated to the cities by John D. Rockefeller from his estate
land with the stipulation that the land remain available for recreational purposes. (Foundation,
Golf Course Name Acreage Golf Course Name Acreage Airport Greens 30.36 Mid Pines Golf Club 142.19 Astorhurst Golf Course And Country Club 140.80 North Olmsted Golf Club 57.45 Beechmont Country Club 175.43 Oakwood Country Club 150.39 Briardale Golf Course 125.52 Parkview Golf Course 76.07 Briarwood Golf Course 211.74 Parma Driving Range 13.28 Canterbury Golf Club 135.52 Pepper Pike Country Club 234.52 Chagrin Valley Country Club 196.55 Ridgewood Municipal Golf Course 131.05 Grantwood Country Club 354.01 Seneca Golf Course 346.64 Hawthorne Valley Country Club 172.10 Shaker Heights Country Club 128.61 Hickory Nut Golf Club 0.87 Springvale Golf Course 74.36 Highland Park Golf Course 352.00 Strongsville Golf Facility 12.55 Lakewood Country Club 215.54 The Country Club 226.60 Links At The Renaissance 208.47 Valleaire Golf Club Inc 1.11 Locust Grove Par 3 Golf Course 14.10 Westlake Meadow Golf Course 71.24 Mayfield Country Club 205.48 Westwood Country Club 166.16 Total 4,370.71
Table 6: Golf Courses in Cuyahoga County by acreage.
21 | R o b b i n s
2012). At less than half an acre, Parma’s Green Valley Park is the smallest municipal park in
the County.
3.2 Green Space by City
Of the 59 municipalities in Cuyahoga County, 57 contain green space. Neither the
Village of Linndale nor the Village of North Randall contains an urban green space. These
small villages consist of only 0.09 and 0.78 square miles, respectively, making them smaller
than several of the County’s green spaces. Correcting for their respective populations, Linndale
should have 0.034 acres of green space per resident, while North Randall should have 0.052.
With almost 14% of the County’s green space, Brecksville leads other municipalities in the
green space category, followed by Cleveland with almost 10% and Strongsville with just over
8%. Interestingly, when accounting for Brecksville’s size, its theoretical urban green space is
only 4.26%, while Cleveland should be allotted almost 17%, and Strongsville should have
5.35%. Correcting for population, Cleveland should theoretically contain 0.014 acres of green
space per resident, while it actually contains 0.008 acres per resident. Brecksville on the other
hand should contain 0.099 acres per resident and actually amounts to 0.32 acres per resident.
Table 7, spread over the next three pages displays the theoretical and actual green space
distributions for each municipality in terms of both land area and population.
22 | R o b b i n s
Municipality Population Size (Acres) Size (sq mi.) Density (People per Square Mile
% Total Land
Theoretical Green Space
per Landmass (Acres)
% Theoretical Green Space per Landmass
Theoretical Green Space
per Population (Acres)
Actual Green Space per Landmass (Acres)
% Actual Green Space per Landmass
Actual Green Space per Population
% Difference in Actual/Theoretical
Green Space
Bay Village 15,599 2,963.89 4.63 3,368.43 1.01% 317.56 1.01% 0.020 197.01 0.62% 0.013 -‐37.96% Beachwood 11,914 3,387.64 5.29 2,250.75 1.15% 362.96 1.15% 0.030 224.25 0.71% 0.019 -‐38.22% Bedford 13,031 3,428.38 5.36 2,432.58 1.16% 367.33 1.16% 0.028 609.74 1.93% 0.047 65.99% Bedford Heights 10,716 2,903.23 4.54 2,362.19 0.99% 311.06 0.99% 0.029 315.62 1.00% 0.029 1.47% Bentleyville 861 1,675.25 2.62 328.99 0.57% 179.49 0.57% 0.208 562.37 1.78% 0.653 213.32% Berea 19,030 3,561.99 5.57 3,419.24 1.21% 381.64 1.21% 0.020 438.81 1.39% 0.023 14.98% Bratenahl 1,193 656.13 1.03 1,163.73 0.22% 70.30 0.22% 0.059 11.87 0.04% 0.010 -‐83.11% Brecksville 13,611 12,553.22 19.61 693.93 4.26% 1,344.99 4.26% 0.099 4,360.43 13.83% 0.320 224.20% Broadview Heights 19,336 8,356.96 13.06 1,480.81 2.84% 895.39 2.84% 0.046 469.15 1.49% 0.024 -‐47.60% Brook Park 11,132 4,823.50 7.54 1,477.06 1.64% 516.80 1.64% 0.046 498.12 1.58% 0.045 -‐3.62% Brooklyn 1,538 2,753.15 4.30 357.51 0.93% 294.98 0.93% 0.192 199.95 0.63% 0.130 -‐32.22% Brooklyn Heights 19,149 1,134.70 1.77 10,800.35 0.39% 121.58 0.39% 0.006 41.32 0.13% 0.002 -‐66.01% Chagrin Falls 4,099 1,348.87 2.11 1,945.07 0.46% 144.52 0.46% 0.035 7.28 0.02% 0.002 -‐94.96% Chagrin Falls T. 4,219 330.16 0.52 8,178.49 0.11% 35.37 0.11% 0.008 34.12 0.11% 0.008 -‐3.55% Cleveland 395,508 49,925.39 78.01 5,070.07 16.95% 5,349.15 16.95% 0.014 3,133.36 9.94% 0.008 -‐41.42% Cleveland Heights 45,969 5,199.74 8.12 5,658.02 1.76% 557.12 1.76% 0.012 457.99 1.45% 0.010 -‐17.79% Cuyahoga Heights 636 2,053.22 3.21 198.21 0.70% 219.99 0.70% 0.346 279.91 0.89% 0.440 27.24% East Cleveland 17,784 1,987.96 3.11 5,725.43 0.67% 213.00 0.67% 0.012 275.84 0.87% 0.016 29.51% Euclid 48,759 6,852.87 10.71 4,553.67 2.33% 734.24 2.33% 0.015 522.10 1.66% 0.011 -‐28.89% Fairview Park 16,771 3,004.99 4.70 3,571.79 1.02% 321.96 1.02% 0.019 702.47 2.23% 0.042 118.18%
Table 7a: Urban green space by municipality in terms of: land area and population. Data is presented by actual and theoretical green space distribution.
23 | R o b b i n s
Municipality Population Size (Acres) Size (sq mi.) Density (People per Square Mile
% Total Land
Theoretical Green Space
per Landmass (Acres)
% Theoretical Green Space per Landmass
Theoretical Green Space
per Population (Acres)
Actual Green Space per Landmass (Acres)
% Actual Green Space per Landmass
Actual Green Space per Population
% Difference in Actual/Theoretical
Green Space
Garfield Heights 28,754.01 4,676.62 7.31 3,935.02 1.59% 501.07 1.59% 0.017 506.01 1.60% 0.018 0.99% Gates Mills 2,262.53 5,822.61 9.10 248.69 1.98% 623.85 1.98% 0.276 466.52 1.48% 0.206 -‐25.22% Glenwillow 919.96 1,740.92 2.72 338.20 0.59% 186.53 0.59% 0.203 14.98 0.05% 0.016 -‐91.97% Highland Heights 8,317.52 3,284.48 5.13 1,620.72 1.11% 351.91 1.11% 0.042 71.44 0.23% 0.009 -‐79.70% Highland Hills 1,126.28 1,267.39 1.98 568.74 0.43% 135.79 0.43% 0.121 498.31 1.58% 0.442 266.97% Hunting Valley 702.68 5,108.31 7.98 88.04 1.73% 547.32 1.73% 0.779 1.26 0.00% 0.002 -‐99.77% Independence 7,109.51 6,134.63 9.59 741.71 2.08% 657.28 2.08% 0.092 1,016.49 3.22% 0.143 54.65% Lakewood 51,959.35 3,563.21 5.57 9,332.60 1.21% 381.77 1.21% 0.007 220.24 0.70% 0.004 -‐42.31% Linndale 178.41 56.18 0.09 2,032.44 0.02% 6.02 0.02% 0.034 0.00 0.00% 0.000 -‐100.00% Lyndhurst 13,954.90 2,809.78 4.39 3,178.59 0.95% 301.05 0.95% 0.022 382.74 1.21% 0.027 27.14% Maple Heights 23,061.81 3,321.85 5.19 4,443.18 1.13% 355.91 1.13% 0.015 68.38 0.22% 0.003 -‐80.79% Mayfield 3,448.61 2,514.14 3.93 877.88 0.85% 269.37 0.85% 0.078 806.94 2.56% 0.234 199.56% Mayfield Heights 19,091.93 2,699.39 4.22 4,526.51 0.92% 289.22 0.92% 0.015 165.51 0.52% 0.009 -‐42.77% Middleburg Heights 15,893.49 5,177.20 8.09 1,964.74 1.76% 554.70 1.76% 0.035 622.74 1.98% 0.039 12.27% Moreland Hills 3,309.07 4,641.53 7.25 456.27 1.58% 497.31 1.58% 0.150 713.36 2.26% 0.216 43.44% Newburgh Heights 2,159.86 372.51 0.58 3,710.81 0.13% 39.91 0.13% 0.018 59.21 0.19% 0.027 48.34% North Olmsted 32,610.27 7,443.19 11.63 2,803.98 2.53% 797.49 2.53% 0.024 947.57 3.01% 0.029 18.82% North Randall 1,023.62 500.36 0.78 1,309.28 0.17% 53.61 0.17% 0.052 0.00 0.00% 0.000 -‐100.00% North Royalton 30,343.76 13,622.08 21.28 1,425.63 4.62% 1,459.51 4.62% 0.048 875.86 2.78% 0.029 -‐39.99% Oakwood 3,654.93 2,213.87 3.46 1,056.59 0.75% 237.20 0.75% 0.065 87.60 0.28% 0.024 -‐63.07%
Table 7b: Urban green space by municipality in terms of: land area and population. Data is presented by actual and theoretical green space distribution.
24 | R o b b i n s
Municipality Population Size (Acres) Size (sq mi.) Density (People per Square Mile
% Total Land
Theoretical Green Space
per Landmass (Acres)
% Theoretical Green Space per Landmass
Theoretical Green Space
per Population (Acres)
Actual Green Space per Landmass (Acres)
% Actual Green Space per Landmass
Actual Green Space per Population
% Difference in Actual/Theoretical
Green Space
Olmsted Falls 8,994.29 2,643.88 4.13 2,177.23 0.90% 283.27 0.90% 0.031 38.12 0.12% 0.004 -‐86.54% Olmsted T. 13,468.51 6,390.25 9.98 1,348.91 2.17% 684.67 2.17% 0.051 536.71 1.70% 0.040 -‐21.61% Orange 3,312.06 2,432.54 3.80 871.40 0.83% 260.63 0.83% 0.079 201.31 0.64% 0.061 -‐22.76% Parma 81,332.31 12,784.84 19.98 4,071.44 4.34% 1,369.81 4.34% 0.017 893.99 2.84% 0.011 -‐34.74% Parma Heights 20,649.78 2,686.91 4.20 4,918.61 0.91% 287.88 0.91% 0.014 225.41 0.71% 0.011 -‐21.70% Pepper Pike 5,959.31 4,544.38 7.10 839.27 1.54% 486.90 1.54% 0.082 451.50 1.43% 0.076 -‐7.27% Richmond Heights 10,511.28 2,800.35 4.38 2,402.28 0.95% 300.04 0.95% 0.029 54.51 0.17% 0.005 -‐81.83% Rocky River 20,146.44 3,042.89 4.75 4,237.33 1.03% 326.02 1.03% 0.016 357.20 1.13% 0.018 9.56% Seven Hills 11,765.13 3,205.65 5.01 2,348.88 1.09% 343.46 1.09% 0.029 94.57 0.30% 0.008 -‐72.46% Shaker Heights 28,354.33 4,044.42 6.32 4,486.86 1.37% 433.33 1.37% 0.015 302.04 0.96% 0.011 -‐30.30% Solon 23,271.12 13,179.59 20.59 1,130.04 4.47% 1,412.10 4.47% 0.061 1,213.03 3.85% 0.052 -‐14.10% South Euclid 22,221.59 3,001.07 4.69 4,738.92 1.02% 321.54 1.02% 0.014 187.41 0.59% 0.008 -‐41.71% Strongsville 44,602.65 15,775.60 24.65 1,809.48 5.35% 1,690.24 5.35% 0.038 2,591.25 8.22% 0.058 53.31% University Heights 13,494.42 1,173.66 1.83 7,358.52 0.40% 125.75 0.40% 0.009 1.00 0.00% 0.000 -‐99.21% Valley View 2,027.30 3,606.50 5.64 359.76 1.22% 386.41 1.22% 0.191 859.24 2.73% 0.424 122.36% Walton Hills 2,273.49 4,400.54 6.88 330.65 1.49% 471.49 1.49% 0.207 1,668.46 5.29% 0.734 253.87% Warrensville Heights 13,497.41 2,640.92 4.13 3,270.96 0.90% 282.96 0.90% 0.021 17.00 0.05% 0.001 -‐93.99% Westlake 32,621.23 10,176.19 15.90 2,051.61 3.45% 1,090.31 3.45% 0.033 965.53 3.06% 0.030 -‐11.44% Woodmere 881.09 210.65 0.33 2,676.98 0.07% 22.57 0.07% 0.026 4.56 0.01% 0.005 -‐79.80% TOTAL 1,280,122.00 294,612.31 460.33 2,780.87 1 31,565.64 100.00% 31,529.72 100.00%
Table 7c: Urban green space by municipality in terms of: land area and population. Data is presented by actual and theoretical green space distribution.
25 | R o b b i n s
Figure 1: Cuyahoga County green spaces by type.
26 | R o b b i n s
Figure 2: Walking distance buffer to urban green spaces in Cuyahoga County.
27 | R o b b i n s
3.3 Walking Distance
In total, 533,095 residents
live within a ¼ mile of an urban
green space, while 747,027
residents do not live within walking
distance. This equates to 42% and
58% of Cuyahoga’s population,
respectively. Between races, the
breakdown of living within and
outside of the walking space buffer
is fairly even, with approximately
every racial category tested equating to a 40%/60% split. The racial breakdown is fairly
equitable for many of the individual green space types as well. With both campgrounds, and
easements, geographically small
categories, only about 1% of the
population lives within the walking
space buffer. A similar situation is
seen with the Cuyahoga Valley
National Park, which exists solely
on the periphery of southeastern
Cuyahoga County; only 1% of the
County’s population lives within
walking distance. Interestingly,
Total Urban Green Space
Not Within Walking Distance
Within Walking Distance
Total Population
% Total Population
White 469,212 344,891 814,103 % White 58% 42% 64% Nonwhite 277,818 188,201 466,019 % Nonwhite 60% 40% 36% Black 227,466 152,732 380,198 % Black 60% 40% 30% Native 1,471 1,107 2,578 % Native 57% 43% 0% Asian 19,932 12,951 32,883 % Asian 61% 39% 3% Pacific 167 118 285 % Pacific 59% 41% 0% Other 13,468 9,871 23,339 % Other 58% 42% 2% Multiracial 15,312 11,424 26,736 % Multiracial 57% 43% 2% Total Population 747,027 533,095 1,280,122 %Total Population 58% 42% 100%
Campgrounds Not Within
Walking Distance Within Walking
Distance Total
Population % Total
Population
White 811,645 2,458 814,103 % White 99.70% 0.30% 64% Nonwhite 465,549 470 466,019 % Nonwhite 99.90% 0.10% 36% Black 379,883 315 380,198 % Black 99.92% 0.08% 30% Native 2,569 9 2,578 % Native 99.65% 0.35% 0% Asian 32,802 81 32,883 % Asian 99.75% 0.25% 3% Pacific 283 2 285 % Pacific 99.30% 0.70% 0% Other 23,320 19 23,339 % Other 99.92% 0.08% 2% Multiracial 26,694 42 26,736 % Multiracial 99.84% 0.16% 2% Total Population 1,277,194 2,928 1,280,122 %Total Population 99.77% 0.23% 100%
Table 8: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around County green spaces. Information is given by total population and race.
Table 9: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around County campgrounds. Information is given by total population and race.
28 | R o b b i n s
cemeteries, while more spread out,
are also fairly evenly spread among
racial groups in the County, with
approximately 6% of the population
living within the walking space
buffer across the racial spectrum.
Golf courses in the County are also
fairly adequate in terms of racial
justice, with just over 4% of whites
living within walking distance and
just under 3% of nonwhite residents
living within walking distance. When looking at the Metroparks and municipal parks however,
some varied trends seem to emerge. Over 12% of the white population of Cuyahoga County
lives within walking distance of the
Cleveland Metroparks.
Convsersely, only just over 5% of
the nonwhite population of the
County lives within walking
distance, with less than 5% of the
black population living within this
area. The inverse is true for
municipal parks. While almost 30%
of the nonwhite population lives
Easements Not Within
Walking Distance Within Walking
Distance Total
Population % Total
Population
White 810,784 3,319 814,103 % White 99.59% 0.41% 64% Nonwhite 465,780 239 466,019 % Nonwhite 99.95% 0.05% 36% Black 380,153 45 380,198 % Black 99.99% 0.01% 30% Native 2,578 0 2,578 % Native 100.00% 0.00% 0% Asian 32,763 120 32,883 % Asian 99.64% 0.36% 3% Pacific 284 1 285 % Pacific 99.65% 0.35% 0% Other 23,320 19 23,339 % Other 99.92% 0.08% 2% Multiracial 26,684 52 26,736 % Multiracial 99.81% 0.19% 2% Total Population 1,276,566 3,556 1,280,122 %Total Population 99.72% 0.28% 100%
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Not Within Walking Distance
Within Walking Distance
Total Population
% Total Population
White 808,265 5,838 814,103 % White 99.28% 0.72% 64% Nonwhite 465,757 262 466,019 % Nonwhite 99.94% 0.06% 36% Black 380,129 69 380,198 % Black 99.98% 0.02% 30% Native 2,575 3 2,578 % Native 99.88% 0.12% 0% Asian 32,780 103 32,883 % Asian 99.69% 0.31% 3% Pacific 282 3 285 % Pacific 98.95% 1.05% 0% Other 23,323 16 23,339 % Other 99.93% 0.07% 2% Multiracial 26,666 70 26,736 % Multiracial 99.74% 0.26% 2% Total Population 1,274,022 6,100 1,280,122 %Total Population 99.52% 0.48% 100%
Table 11: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Information is given by total population and race.
Table 10: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around County easements. Information is given by total population and race.
29 | R o b b i n s
a) b)
c) d)
within walking distance of a municipal park, less than
25% of the white population lives within this buffer.
Golf Courses Not Within
Walking Distance Within Walking
Distance
White 779,115 34,988 % White 95.70% 4.30% Nonwhite 453,154 12,865 % Nonwhite 97.24% 2.76% Black 370,164 10,034 % Black 97.36% 2.64% Native 2,532 46 % Native 98.22% 1.78% Asian 31,316 1,567 % Asian 95.23% 4.77% Pacific 275 10 % Pacific 96.49% 3.51% Other 23,057 282 % Other 98.79% 1.21% Multiracial 25,815 921 % Multiracial 96.56% 3.44% Total Population 1,232,266 47,856 %Total Population 96.26% 3.74%
Cleveland Metroparks
Not Within Walking Distance
Within Walking Distance
White 714,963 99,140 % White 87.82% 12.18% Nonwhite 441,288 24,731 % Nonwhite 94.69% 5.31% Black 362,965 17,233 % Black 95.47% 4.53% Native 2,362 216 % Native 91.62% 8.38% Asian 30,214 2,669 % Asian 91.88% 8.12% Pacific 258 27 % Pacific 90.53% 9.47% Other 21,279 2,060 % Other 91.17% 8.83% Multiracial 24,241 2,495 % Multiracial 90.67% 9.33% Total Population 1,156,262 123,860 %Total Population 90.32% 9.68%
a)
Table 12: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around the Cleveland Metroparks. Information is given by total population and race.
b) Table 13: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around the County’s golf courses. Information is given by total population and race.
Cemeteries Not Within
Walking Distance Within Walking
Distance
White 768,848 45,255 % White 94.44% 5.56% Nonwhite 434,363 31,656 % Nonwhite 93.21% 6.79% Black 355,376 24,822 % Black 93.47% 6.53% Native 2,403 175 % Native 93.21% 6.79% Asian 30,611 2,272 % Asian 93.09% 6.91% Pacific 265 20 % Pacific 92.98% 7.02% Other 20,894 2,445 % Other 89.52% 10.48% Multiracial 24,812 1,924 % Multiracial 92.80% 7.20% Total Population 1,203,211 76,911 %Total Population 93.99% 6.01%
Municipal Parks Not Within
Walking Distance Within Walking
Distance
White 614,260 199,843 % White 75.45% 24.55% Nonwhite 327,768 138,251 % Nonwhite 70.33% 29.67% Black 263,666 116,532 % Black 69.35% 30.65% Native 1,841 737 % Native 71.41% 28.59% Asian 25,277 7,606 % Asian 76.87% 23.13% Pacific 224 61 % Pacific 78.60% 21.40% Other 17,319 6,020 % Other 74.21% 25.79% Multiracial 19,441 7,295 % Multiracial 72.71% 27.29% Total Population 942,010 338,112 %Total Population 73.59% 26.41%
c)
Table 14: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around the County’s cemeteries. Information is given by total population and race.
d) Table 15: Population within and outside of a ¼ mile walking space buffer around the County’s municipal parks. Information is given by total population and race.
30 | R o b b i n s
Figure 3: Park access in Cuyahoga County in terms of population per square mile.
31 | R o b b i n s
Figure 4: Access to parks for white population in Cuyahoga County.
32 | R o b b i n s
Figure 5: Access to parks for nonwhite population in Cuyahoga County.
33 | R o b b i n s
Figure 6: Access to parks for black population in Cuyahoga County.
34 | R o b b i n s
Figure 7: Access to parks for American Indian population in Cuyahoga County.
35 | R o b b i n s
Figure 8: Access to parks for Asian population in Cuyahoga County.
36 | R o b b i n s
Figure 9: Access to parks for Pacific Islander population in Cuyahoga County.
37 | R o b b i n s
Figure 10: Access to parks for “other race” population in Cuyahoga County.
38 | R o b b i n s
Figure 11: Access to parks for multiracial population in Cuyahoga County.
39 | R o b b i n s
3.4 Municipal Park Features
As previously mentioned, municipal parks in the County total just over 4,500 acres. This land is
spread over 198 parks in 46 municipalities. Cuyahoga’s municipal park system includes 15 large
urban parks, 37 community parks, 71 neighborhood parks, and 26 mini-parks. Additionally, the
County contains 15 natural resource areas, 8 school-parks, 7 special use parks, 8 sports
complexes, 6 downtown parks, and 5 parks on private property. Table 16 lists each of these
parks by name, municipality, park type, size, and amenities (see attached spreadsheet).
4. Discussion
4.1 Adequacy of Green Space
Almost all land in
Cuyahoga County is within two
miles of parkland within the
County. The only portion not
within this 2-mile area is in the
Southwest section of Olmsted
Township. It is possible that
this area is near parks in
neighboring Lorain and Medina
Counties. Areas of the county Figure 11: Distance from parkland given in miles. Yellow shows closest proximity to parks while red and blue show further, respectively.
40 | R o b b i n s
furthest from parks include sections of Cleveland, North Royalton, the border of Broadview
Heights and Independence, and sections of Solon and Hunting Valley. It is important to note that
much of this land may be undeveloped wooded areas not included in this analysis. Linndale and
North Randall are small municipalities, and while they don’t have any public parks, their
populations seemed to be served by neighboring municipalities. Due to the large number and
small size of Cuyahoga County municipalities, it is difficult to measure green space adequacy
based on municipality alone.
Throughout the green space categories, only a minority of Cuyahoga County’s population
lives within walking distance. When amassing all urban green spaces, approximately 40% of the
population lives within walking distance.
Interestingly, this figure holds true across the racial spectrum. It is worth noting the
racial discrepancies between the Cleveland Metroparks and municipal parks. The Metroparks,
run by an independent entity with its own revenue scheme, are well managed and maintained,
impressive, and complete with an assortment of recreational activities. These parks are more
often in more affluent communities along the County’s periphery. The absence of large
Metroparks in the inner-city makes it increasingly difficult for disadvantaged populations to
access these parks. This disparateness is intensified more when one takes into account that lower
income families in the central city often lack access to efficient transportation. In fact, a few of
the Metroparks are not directly served by public transportation in the County, making these parks
impossible to reach for individuals with no cars.
Municipal parks, meanwhile, are more prominent among nonwhite individuals than white
individuals. This fact may stem from population trends in the County. With the creation of the
interstate system and populating of the suburbs, the more affluent and mainly white population
41 | R o b b i n s
left the central city, leaving behind an economically disadvantaged and majority nonwhite
population. Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs are built with more density than the
Cleveland’s outer-ring suburbs, with many properties having little to no green space. On the
other hand, the outer-ring suburbs are populated with large plots of land, sometimes exceeding
dozens of acres. These tracts contain reasonable green spaces within their property, mitigating
the need for public parks. While age was not looked at in this study, a previous study states the
highest served age group is those over 65 years of age, with 45.92% within walking distance
(Robbins, 2012). As the elderly often do not have access to transportation and cannot walk very
far, easy access to urban green space is very important for this age group.
4.2 The Case for Cuyahoga
In 1914, Charles Downing Lay, then landscape architect for the New York State
Department of Parks estimated that 12.5% of a city’s total area should be parkland (Moeller,
1965). Extrapolating this information to the County level, Cuyahoga is approximately 2% short
in terms of land area reserved for green space. Mr. Lay estimated for every 100,000 people,
there should be 700 acres of reservation, 400 acres of large park, 250 acres of neighborhood
parks, 100 acres of playgrounds, and 50 acres of gardens and squares (Moeller, 1965). The
County does meet and even exceed these targets. More recently, the NRA suggested 10 acres of
park per 1,000 residents. Accounting for all urban green spaces in the County, Cuyahoga far
exceeds this minimum, however remains far below it in terms of solely municipal parks. Overall,
while the County is home to a large number and varied types of parks, these parks do not
adequately serve all populations in the County. With health problems on the rise, it is more
42 | R o b b i n s
important than ever to bring recreation to disadvantaged populations. As evidenced above, not
only is physical exercise necessary for human health, but access to natural green spaces remains
critically important, both in terms of physical and psychological health. Large parks such as the
Metroparks must be interspersed among the inner-city. Additionally, smaller recreational parks
should be placed in more areas around the suburbs. In many regions of the suburbs, children
cannot walk to a nearby park in order to swim, play, or exercise. Mini parks do much to support
healthy lifestyles, strong families, and strong communities. Such parks should not be forgotten as
suburban growth and development continues.
4.3 Future Park Financing
As public goods, green spaces do not benefit a single person. This fact makes it
incredibly difficult to create financing schemes for public green spaces. In most instances, they
are supported financially by state and federal governments (Knudson, 1977). Most governments
finance these public lands with tax revenues (Samnaliev, More, & Stevens, 2006). Due to
economic pressures, however, government budgets are becoming increasingly tight, which
trickles down directly to the parks departments. In New York City, the Parks Department’s
operations and maintenance budget has been slashed for the past five years and its staff cut by
more than 30 percent (Ulam, 2013). Some cities have turned to private sources to create and
maintain parks. “In 1968, the New York City Department of Planning outsourced the
development of more than five hundred privately owned public spaces. In exchange for
providing ‘public space,’ private developers were granted the right to build more than twenty
million square feet of residential and office floor space that would not otherwise have been
43 | R o b b i n s
permitted under zoning regulations” (Ulam, 2013). Much of this land, however, was useless,
with a 2000 study showing that “about 40 percent of the public space created [had] lackluster
designs, few amenities, and little or no sunlight. Some of the public spaces were in fact
inaccessible to visitors (Ulam, 2013). Other parks, such as the Hudson River Park in New York
City, “must raise [their] own funds through income generated from concession fees, grants,
donations, and rents from commercial tenants within the park” (Ulam, 2013). Hudson River
Park and municipal park agencies “have become charity cases, overly dependent upon support
from conservancies and Friends (sic)” groups in order to fulfill their missions (Ulam, 2013).
This private source funding creates two classes of users, the funders who profit from these parks
and the citizens that use the sites (Ulam, 2013). In fact, “much of the corruption that attaches to
urban politics relates to how public investments are allocated to produce something that looks
like a common but which promotes gains in private asset values for privileged property owners”
(Harvey, 2012). To combat the takeover of public lands by private entities, public green spaces
should remain financed by the public realm. For this to happen, a true value must be placed on
urban green spaces which reflect citizens’ willingness to pay for their use.
As mentioned previously, hedonic valuation methods afford suitable monetary valuation
of non-priced services, and have been widely used to value public spaces (Jim & Chen, 2006).
Contingency valuation provides another method with which a public space’s value can be found
(Jim & Chen, 2006). Such methods, which ask a population’s willingness to pay provides a
reasonable worth for parks and other open spaces. A study in Guangzhou, China estimated the
average willingness to pay for urban green spaces at RMB17.40, or about $2 per person per
month (Jim & Chen, 2006). A 2012 study by Leon Younger, former executive director of the
Lake Metroparks in Lake County, Ohio showed that 85% of those surveyed in Cuyahoga County
44 | R o b b i n s
would pay $15 more in taxes for the Metroparks to operate the Lakefront parks (Ewinger, 2012).
To the owner of a $100,000 house, this value accounts for an almost 25% increase. Armed with
contingent valuation, parks departments can yield a quantitative value for the importance of their
services. Such information is integral to changing the amount of public money allocated toward
urban green spaces.
Furthermore, parks departments should work in tandem with other government agencies.
Working with Departments of Transportation, Planning, Health, and other government services
increases the amount of money available to creating and maintaining urban green spaces. As
parks provide services for each of these departments, such interagency interaction should not
only be welcome, but actively encouraged.
4.4 Project Limits
All calculations and maps created in this study are based off of the Cuyahoga County
Planning Commission’s Open Space Inventory. This collection of data is the most
comprehensive and complete anthology of urban green space in existence in the County,
however it is not perfect. Park shapefiles are not always true to scale. For instance, while the
Cleveland Metropark’s owns 18,123 acres in the County, this analysis yields 17,283.92 (Kutsko
& Studniarz, 2012). This error is pervasive yet consistent throughout the green space data.
Furthermore, there may be small or new parks throughout the County that are not present in the
Open Space Inventory. Without knowledge of these parks, they were not able to be included in
the case study.
45 | R o b b i n s
Cuyahoga County is home to a growing number of community gardens. As of this time,
there is no comprehensive public record of these gardens in existence. Due to time constraints,
an independent collection of urban garden data was not possible, they were thus left out of the
green space case study.
Inaccessibility to property data on a scale smaller than block group made it impossible to
analyze whether proximity to parks affected property value. While this correlation has been
shown in many studies, it was left out of this study.
Because of weather and time constraints, as well as limiting source error, municipal park
amenities were determined via satellite imagery using Google Maps. While effective, this
method is by no means infallible. Satellite images used on Google Maps are not always up to
date; therefore park changes may not be reflected in their imagery. In addition, not all amenities
are always viewable by satellite. This is even truer for small amenities, or amenities that may be
hidden by tree cover. Originally a ranking of urban green spaces was to be included in this
analysis, however, a fitting hierarchy could not be created without some sort of qualitative
analysis such as a survey.
5. Conclusion
While the County does have a significant number of urban green spaces including a
portion of the only National Park in the state, Cuyahoga is still underserved by green space.
Additionally, different portions of the County are served by vastly different types of green space.
The periphery of the County is served by the vast Emerald Necklace of the Cleveland
Metroparks and Cuyahoga Valley National Park, while the center of the county is served only by
46 | R o b b i n s
smaller spaces with minimal exception. This dilemma has both ecological and cultural
consequences. Smaller parks and green spaces are not as influential in storm water management
and other ecological services as are larger green spaces tied to watersheds. This means that the
central city and inner ring suburbs see less groundwater percolation and natural water cleaning,
while they suffer from increased runoff, erosion, and pollution. This “pocket park effect” also
limits migration routes for wildlife, making many of these areas almost inaccessible for larger
animals. Culturally the disparateness between inner and outer Cuyahoga County leads to
changes in quality of life. Smaller inner-city parks do not have a number of recreational
activities available in the larger suburban parks including hiking, bird watching, creek walking,
and horseback riding. As previously mentioned, these large wooded parks also provide a vast
array of emotional and social benefits, which are lost on urban residents. Further analysis of this
situation should involve some aspect of qualitative measure for green space adequacy in the
County. Additionally, open space upkeep and other factors that may affect park use were not
looked at and should be incorporated into future analyses. With a glut of underutilized and
vacant land in the inner-city, it is possible to create park corridors to truly make this region a
“green city on a blue lake.” As we move forward into the 21st century, it is integral we preserve
and extend our park system, providing green space and ecological services to our entire
population.
47 | R o b b i n s
6. References Allsopp, M. H., De Lange, W. J., & Veldtman, R. (2008). Valuing insect pollination services
with cost of replacement. PLoS One, 3(9), e3128. Atassi, L. (2013, April 22, 2013). Cleveland City Council Approves Lease of Lakefront Parks to
Cleveland Metroparks, The Plain Dealer. Retrieved from http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/04/cleveland_city_council_approve_2. html
Baur, J. W. R., & Tynon, J. F. (2010). Small-Scale Urban Nature Parks: Why Should We Care? Leisure Sciences, 32(2), 195-200.
Bureau, U. C. American FactFinder. Retrieved April, 21, 2013, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
Canalway, O. E. Where It All Began - Our Canal-Era History. Retrieved April, 24, 2013, from http://www.ohioanderiecanalway.com/Main/Pages/57.aspx
Census, U. Cartographic Boundary Files. Retrieved April 21, 2013, from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1), 129-138.
Cohen, M., Baudoin, R., Palibrk, M., Persyn, N., & Rhein, C. (2012). Urban biodiversity and social inequalities in built-up cities: New evidences, next questions. The example of Paris, France. Landscape and Urban Planning Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 277- 287.
County, C. Cleveland. Retrieved April, 23, 2013, from http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/en- US/Communities.aspx
Dictionary.com. (2013). Park. Retrieved April, 21, 2013, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/park?s=t
Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18, 227-227.
Ewinger, J. (2012). Cleveland Metroparks close to lakefron takeover, The Plain Dealer. Retrieved from http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/metroparks_close_to_lakefront.html
Fairfax County , V. Planning Commission TOD Committee Walking Distance Research. Foundation, T. C. L. (2012). Forest Hill Park. Retrieved April, 26, 2013, from
http://tclf.org/landscapes/forest-hill-park Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution: Verso Books. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban
greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and urban planning, 75(1-2), 81-96. Kasper, A. (2013, April 24, 2012). Honeybee disappearance baffles experts, Smoky Mountain
News. Retrieved from http://www.smokymountainnews.com/outdoors/item/10193- honeybee-disappearance-baffles-experts
Kastelic, J., February 2013). [Personal Communication]. Knudson, D. M. (1977). Financing Public Parks. Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:
Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823-851.
Kutsko, S., & Studniarz, D. (2012). Real Estate Report: Cleveland Metroparks.
48 | R o b b i n s
Leinberger, C. B., & Berens, G. (1997). Executive summary: Creating better urban parks and open space. Urban parks and open space, 25-42.
Lewis, M., & American Planning Association. Planning Advisory, S. (2008). From recreation to re-creation : new directions in parks and open space system planning. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
Luymes, D. T., & Tamminga, K. (1995). Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape and urban planning, 33(1), 391-400.
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Henderson-Watson, C., Pryor, A., Prosser, L., Moore, M., . . . Victoria, P. (2008). Healthy Parks Healthy People: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context: Deakin University and Parks Victoria.
Merriam-Webster. (2013). Park. Retrieved April, 21, 2013, from http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/park
Mertes, J. D., Hall, J. R., National, R., Park, A., American Academy for, P., & Recreation, A. (1995). Park, recreation, open space and greenway guidelines. [Arlington, Va.?]: National Recreation and Park Association.
Metroparks, C. (2013a). The Beginnings of Cleveland Metroparks. Retrieved April, 24, 2013, from http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/History.aspx
Metroparks, C. (2013b). Brecksville Reservation. Retrieved April, 25, 2013, from http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/Reservations-Partners/Brecksville- Reservation-4.aspx
Metroparks, C. (2013c). Washington Reservation. Retrieved April, 25, 2013, from http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/Reservations-Partners/Washington- Reservation-including-Rivergate-15.aspx
Metroparks, C. (2013d). William A Stinchcomb: "Mr. Metropolitan Park". Retrieved April, 24, 2013, from http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/WilliamStinchcomb.aspx
Moeller, J. (1965). Standards for Outdoor Recreational Areas Planning Advisory Notice. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association.
Nicholls, S., & Crompton, J. L. (2005). Impacts of regional parks on property values in Texas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23(2), 87-108.
Park, C. V. N. (2013, 4/22/2013). Park Statistics. Retrieved April, 24, 2013, from http://www.nps.gov/cuva/parkmgmt/statistics.htm
Plus, C. (2013). For Business. from www.clevelandplus.com/en/For-Business.aspx Rizwan, A. M., Dennis, L. Y., & Liu, C. (2008). A review on the generation, determination and
mitigation of Urban Heat Island. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 120-128. Robbins, J. (2012). Final Presentation Memo. Levin College of Urban Affairs. Cleveland State
University. Samnaliev, M., More, T., & Stevens, T. (2006). Financing Public Recreation Lands: Attitudes
About Alternative Policies. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 24(3), 24-49. Service, N. P. (2012). Cuyahoga Valley National Park Fact Sheet. In U. S. D. o. t. Interior (Ed.). Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030
and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211658109
Stuart, M., Gardner-Andrews, N., Hansen, K. M., & Grumbles, B. (2013). Legal Context and Implementation of Green Infrastructure. Paper presented at the National Planning Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
49 | R o b b i n s
Tajima, K. (2003). New Estimates of the Demand for Urban Green Space: Implications for Valuing the Environmental Benefits of Boston's Big Dig Project. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(5), 641-655.
Ulam, A. (2013). Our Parks Are Not for Sale. Dissent (00123846), 60(1), 64-70.
- An Analysis of Urban Greenspace_Jared Robbins
- An Analysis of Urban Greenspace_Jared Robbins.2
- An Analysis of Urban Greenspace_Jared Robbins.3
- An Analysis of Urban Greenspace_Jared Robbins.4
- An Analysis of Urban Greenspace_Jared Robbins.5
