Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/75042
NEWSLINK ParkScore Rankings Revealed for 40 Largest U.S. Cities A park-rating system developed by The Trust for Public Land ranks San Francisco; Sacramento, Calif.; Boston; and New York as the nation's top city-park systems. Indianapolis; Mesa, Ariz.; Louisville, Kent.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Fresno, Calif., received the low- est ParkScores among the 40 largest U.S. cities. ParkScore was designed to help local communities identify where new parks are needed most and which park improvements can deliver the greatest impact. ParkScores are based equally on three factors: 1) Park access, which measures the percentage of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park (approximately a half mile); 2) Park size/acreage, which is based on a city's median park size and the percentage of total city area dedicated to parks; and 3) Services and invest- ment, which combines the number of playgrounds per 10,000 city residents and per capita park spending. ParkScore data and analysis were reviewed by local park-system leaders to ensure accuracy. ParkScore uses advanced GIS computer-mapping technology to create digital maps evaluating park accessibility, making it the most realistic assess- ment system available. Instead of simply measuring distance to a local park, ParkScore's GIS technology takes into account the location of park entrances and physical obstacles to access. For example, if residents are separated from a nearby park by a major highway, ParkScore doesn't count the park as accessible to those residents (unless there's a bridge, underpass or easy access point across the highway). "You can't have a great city without a great park system," said Christopher Kay, chief operating officer of The Trust for Public Land. "Studies show that parks help children and adults get the exercise they need to stay healthy, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and help bring neighbors together. The Trust for Public Land hopes that ParkScore inspires cities to focus on parks, and we're eager to work with municipal leaders and volunteers to help them build the best park systems imaginable." According to The Trust for Public Land, the 10 highest- and lowest-ranking park systems are: Top 10 highest-ranking park systems 1. San Francisco 2. Sacramento, Calif. 3. Boston (tie) 3. New York (tie) 5. Washington, D.C. 6. Portland, Ore. 7. Virginia Beach, Va. 8. San Diego 9. Seattle 10. Philadelphia 10 lowest-ranking park systems 31. Tucson, Ariz. (tie) 31. Memphis, Tenn. (tie) 33. Oklahoma City 34. Jacksonville, Fla. 35. San Antonio 36. Indianapolis (tie) 36. Mesa, Ariz. (tie) 38. Louisville, Kent. 39. Charlotte, N.C. 40. Fresno, Calif. "No city received a perfect score in this inau- gural release of the ParkScore ratings, and that means every city can improve," added Kay. "It's critical to act now. A concerted effort to improve local park systems not only means a better ParkScore, but also a healthier, more beautiful and more vibrant city. That's something all city leaders should strive for." In addition to the ranking list, ParkScore features In the ParkScore rating system, cities can earn a maximum of 100. For easy comparison and at-a-glance assessment, each city also is given a rating of zero to five park benches. One bench means the park system needs major improvement, while five benches means the park system is outstanding. 8 GEO W ORLD / JU L Y 2O12 a Web site, ParkScore.TPL.org, that local leaders can use as a roadmap to guide park-improvement efforts. The site provides extensive data and analy- ses that pinpoint the neighborhoods where parks are needed most, including interactive maps of each ParkScore city, allowing users to zoom in and study park access on a block-by-block basis. Additional detailed information about each public park in all 40 ParkScore cities is provided. The Web site is free and open to the public. NOAA