The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) recommends 6 to 10 acres of local parkland for every 1,000 residents. The NRPA standard for close-to-home parks which includes neighborhood, community and school parks (that is, school playfields and playgrounds) is a range of 6.25-10.5 acres of parks for every thousand residents. The standard of 6.25 acres per thousand residents is what both Knoxville and Knox county parks departments have used as a baseline standard for the last several years.

The above table, provided by the MPC, looks at the total park acreage per sector for the city and the county and compares the total acreage to the number of acres of close-to-home parks per 1,000 residents. A close-to-home park is defined by the MPC as "parks that are within an easy walking or driving distance to most residents." These include neighborhood parks, pocket parks, squares and plazas, greens and commons, school parks, and community parks.
This table for the City Park and Natural Area Acreage shows an average of 4.98 acres per thousand citizens throughout the six city sectors. The North City Sector has the least close-to-home park acreage per resident at 3.49 acres per thousand. In comparison, the East City Sector has the most with 6.35 acres per thousand.
The table shows an average of 3.29 acres per thousand citizens throughout the six county sectors. Looking at the individual sectors the East County Sector has the most close-to-home parks at 8.2 per thousand versus the North County Sector which has the least at 1.45 acres per thousand citizens.
The following table on types of city parks shows that the most close-to-home parks are within the Central City Sector. However, this sector also has the greatest population of the city sectors, which lowers its park to people ratio. The North and Northwest City Sectors have relatively few neighborhood parks and the West City Sector does not have as many individual parks, but does have an abundance of large parks, such as Sequoyah and Lakeshore Parks that are cherished by area residents.

This information becomes even more important when looking at income levels in the various sectors.

All information courtesy of MPC - "The Knoxville - Knox County Park, Recreation, and Greenways Plan," December 2009.

Case Study: East Bay Park System, California

Located in Alameda County and Contra Costa County, California (San Francisco) the East Bay Parks System was established in 1928 when 10,000 acres of former watershed lands were declared public by the East Bay Metropolitan Utility District. This area is surrounded by open space but civic leaders felt it necessary to set the land aside for public recreational use so that it could never be developed. Today, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) consists of nearly 100,000 acres comprised of 14 regional parks, 19 regional preserves, 9 regional recreation areas and 13 regional shorelines, making it the largest regional park system in the United States (Kibel, 2007, 1).
According to the EBRPD Master Plan 2011, there is a park located within thirty minutes of every East Bay resident’s home, and the park system claims that they encourage usage by providing parking facilities at every park and trail head and by encouraging and supporting public transportation. However, when surveyed, close to twenty percent of residents disagreed with the statement that “social equity is a core value to the EBRPD; clearly the District is well known for making a concerted effort to accommodate the needs and desires of ALL levels of income and ALL ethnic groups who reside in Alameda and Contra Costa counties” (5).
Most of the regional parks and preserves are located in the East Bay hillsides, which comprises more than 75% of the agency’s parks. This is important to note because of the demographics of East Bay in regards to race and income levels.
When looking at both counties, Alameda is 41% white with an overall population of 1.5 million people. Contra Costa County is slightly smaller with 1 million people and is 58% white. Both of these counties are similar though in that the hillside communities are more like the county averages while the flatland communities tend to have more minorities than average. For example, the city of Richmond lies in the flatlands near the San Francisco Bay. In 2000 it was 44% African American and 15% Latino with more than 13% of its population living below the poverty level. It also has the highest percentage of youth living below the poverty level in Contra Costa County (Kibel, 2007, 23). These numbers are important when looking at park distribution on the two counties.
Finally, park usage is also consistent with these demographics. In the 2004 report Parks, People and Change: Ethnic Diversity and Its Significance for Parks, Recreation and Open Space Conservation in the San Francisco Bay Area (2004 Parks People and Change Report), the Bay Area Open Space Council looked at the racial mix of weekend users at Redwood Regional Park (Alameda hillsides), Briones Regional Park (Contra Costa hillsides), and Point Pinole Regional Shoreline (near the city of Richmond). The following charts show their findings during a typical 24-hour period:
In the case of Point Pinole, despite the close location to the impoverished minority neighborhood of Richmond, trends still show that whites are the primary users. This is due to the physical barriers that block Richmond residents from access to the park without the use of a car. Old industry, rail lines and the highway stand between Richmond residents and the park and unfortunately, most in the community cannot afford the use of a car and public transportation adds the element of time to get there which is a detractor for most.


The agency is aware of these access problems and has taken steps to remedy them. One initiative is the Parks Express program. Funded by the Regional Parks Foundation, a local nonprofit in Oakland, the program provides transportation for children in under-privileged neighborhoods so they can participate in youth programs offered by East Bay Parks (Kibel, 2007, 30).
In addition to this there are also numerous references to equity in agency documents. Both East Bay Park’s 1997 Master Plan and East Bay Parks’ 2006 Budget state: “The East Bay Regional Park District will achieve its vision in the following ways…Improve access to and use of the parks by members of groups that have been underrepresented, such as disabled, economically disadvantaged, and elderly visitors” (10; 1).
Today, because of continued urbanization, the need for a regional system of publicly owned open space areas, recreational facilities and trails is even greater than it was when the District was originally established. And times are still uncertain. Like other public agencies, the District continually faces the potential loss of essential revenues, while the demand for recreational areas, facilities, programs and services continues to grow. Economic uncertainty, population growth, the increased ethnic and cultural diversity of the East Bay, improved scientific knowledge in natural and cultural resource management, and land use changes that could create new Regional Parks in urban areas are among the key challenges that will shape the East Bay Regional Park District of the future.

Addressing the imbalance in park distribution and accessibility in disadvantaged neighborhoods

Following will be a study on the issue of socio-economic class based inequitable distribution of landscape / recreational resources based on the context of Knoxville. The preliminary study indicates that areas such as Sequoyah Hills and Island Homes are established neighborhoods that speak of safety and security. These areas are predominantly white and house educated, white-collar individuals. There are large, well-maintained parks, with sidewalks, and trails in these neighborhoods and community members take an active role when it comes to taking care of these areas. This can be seen by the recent revitalization of the Sequoyah Hills Walking Trail, which is in direct contrast to areas such as Riverview and Mechanicsville. While these neighborhoods are just as established, they are viewed as unsafe and off limits because of high crime rates and neighborhood demographics. High levels of poverty and a greater percentage of minorities also add to the undesirability of these neighborhoods. The city has located small parks with playgrounds and basketball courts in these neighborhoods but they still lack access to large tracts of open space with multiple recreational facilities.
Based on the Principles of Environmental Justice, this thesis critically reviews the underlying causes of this inequitable distribution and aims to address it through a combination of long term planning strategies, such as site location and brownfield reclamation, and short-term design recommendations, such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).