University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of race in configuring park use: a political ecology perspective

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of race in configuring park use: a political ecology perspective

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF RACE IN CONFIGURING PARK USE:
A POLITICAL ECOLOGY PERSPECTIVE

by

Jason Antony Byrne

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(GEOGRAPHY)

December 2007

Copyright 2007 Jason Antony Byrne

ii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my wife Li Qi, and to my parents Greg and Judith – for
their unconditional love and support.

iii
Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the enthusiasm, patience and guidance of my doctoral
advisor Jennifer Wolch, who saw my potential and made this dissertation possible.
Jennifer has profoundly influenced this dissertation and I value her mentorship,
insights and sound advice. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee
members Laura Pulido and Philip Ethington for their diligent guidance and support. I
similarly wish to acknowledge the indefatigable support of the Geography
Department’s administrative staff Billie Shotlow, Onita Morgan-Edwards and Maria
Muratalla.
Without the generous participation of the following people and groups this
study would not have been possible: Linda Kite and participants from the Healthy
Homes Collaborative and Marlene Grossman and participants from Pacoima
Beautiful who gave so generously of their time and information. I especially thank
the Western National Parks Association – particularly Scott Aldrich for facilitating a
grant for this research. I also extend heart-felt thanks to Melanie Beck, Woody
Smeck, Brian Forist and Gary Machlis from the National Park Service who provided
enormous assistance with the project, and to the forty National Park Service
volunteers who assisted with data collection.
I acknowledge the following people, whose advice, support and suggestions
at various times throughout the course of my doctoral studies have helped me to

iv
fashion this project: Michael Dear, Bernie Bauer, Stephanie Pincetl, John Wilson,
Michael Jerrett, Carolyn Cartier, Travis Longcore, Michael Preston and Najmedin
Meshkati. I would particularly like to thank Rod McKenzie for his good humor and
friendship and Kim Reynolds and Donna Spruijt-Metz from the USC Institute for
Disease Prevention Research for their support, mentoring and encouragement. All
errors, inaccuracies and or opinions remain of course my own.
I also thank my fellow students who have played various roles as sounding
boards, confidants and fellow travelers, especially Donna Houston, Chris Kahle,
Rigoberto Rodriguez, Mary Roche, Andrew Burridge, Nate Sessoms, Steve Flusty
and Chona Sister. I particularly thank Megan Kendrick and David Sroaf who
collaborated on the Baldwin Hills research, and Jose Borrero and Yonni Schwartz,
who knew when to take me away from research for saltwater therapy. I also thank
Greg Martin for his friendship and encouragement and Alec Brownlow for some
great discussions on parks.
On the personal front, I would like to thank my family and friends in
Australia and the United Kingdom, who have encouraged and sustained me
throughout my struggle to complete this Ph.D. I especially thank Jean Hillier who
has always been there for me. I thank my parents Greg and Judith, my brothers
Glenn, Phil and Ryan and my comrade Cam Watts for putting up with my long
silences. The insights of Paul and Patsy McCarthy and their encouragement were
greatly appreciated. I also thank my companion cat Sean, and I wish to thank several

v
people from Los Angeles who were there for me including Yan Xu and Lisa Ku, for
their support and friendship and Christine Lam and Lisa Ku for looking after Sean.
I also wish to acknowledge the support of my friends and colleagues at
Griffith University in Australia. I want to particularly thank Neil Sipe and Brendan
Gleeson for bringing me back to Australia and arranging teaching relief, and Donna
Houston, Jenny Cameron, Caryl Bosman and Dianne Dredge who urged me on to
completion and carried the extra load.
And I cannot forget David Harvey, Marsha Schachtel, Laura Vernon Russell,
Sandee Newman, Eric Champagne, Jack and Ellen Bouvaird, and Lifang Chiang for
starting me on this journey when I visited Johns Hopkins University as a research
fellow.
This dissertation was funded by a Haynes Foundation Dissertation
Fellowship, a University of Southern California Tyler fellowship, a grant from the
Western National Parks Association, and financial contributions from the National
Park Service, the USC Geography Department and USC’s Institute for Disease
Prevention Research.
Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Iris Ahronowitz (summer fellow -
Harvard University), Max Joel (summer fellow - Columbia University), David
Woollard (summer fellow - University of Southern California), Anna Stevenson
(summer fellow – Barnard College) Joseph Tucker (summer fellow – Gettysburg
College), and Lauren Akins (summer fellow - University of Southern California)
who assisted with data collection and preliminary analysis of the visitor survey and

vi
focus group data. I would also like to thank Christina Qi Li from the University of
Southern California who assisted with cartography and Maria Brizuela for translation
services. I thank David Deis from Dreamline Cartography for producing the Baldwin
Hills map. Finally, I thank REI™ for generously donating the gift bags given to
survey participants.

vii
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................iii
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................x
List of Figures .............................................................................................................xi
Abstract ......................................................................................................................xii
Introduction: race, space and parks..............................................................................1
Theoretical frame .....................................................................................................7
Research questions.................................................................................................11
Structure of the dissertation ...................................................................................13
Chapter 1 Race, space and parks: A conceptual frame ..............................................18
Introduction............................................................................................................18
Park studies in geography ......................................................................................22
Parks as elitist ‘culture-natures’ .........................................................................22
Spaces of exclusion: class and race in the park..................................................26
The imperial park ...............................................................................................30
Park benefits and access to nature’s services.....................................................32
Racially differentiated park use .............................................................................34
Variations by race, ethnicity and nativity ..........................................................35
Theories explaining ethno-racially differentiated park use................................38
Reconceptualizing park use and accessibility........................................................42
Conclusion .............................................................................................................50
Chapter 2 The racialized history of L.A. park-making: The Baldwin Hills ..............52
Introduction............................................................................................................52
Los Angeles’ park renaissance...............................................................................54
A political ecology of an urban park......................................................................58
The park’s regional context................................................................................59
The park’s historical context - opportunities lost…...........................................61
‘Black gold’........................................................................................................63
Real estate development.....................................................................................67
Oil and water don’t mix – nature reviled, nature revived ..................................71
The park is born .................................................................................................75
Oil in the political machinery.............................................................................81
Reprise: environmental racism and the Baldwin Hills...........................................85
Conclusion .............................................................................................................86

viii
Chapter 3 Race, space and national park use: The Santa Monica Mountains............93
Introduction............................................................................................................93
Environmental justice and urban national parks....................................................95
Methods................................................................................................................100
Analysis................................................................................................................105
Results..................................................................................................................107
Visitors’ socio-demographic characteristics ....................................................107
Patterns of visitation.........................................................................................110
Activities of trail users .....................................................................................115
Problem activities and user conflict .................................................................117
Sources of information.....................................................................................117
Attitudes towards the park ...............................................................................119
Discussion ............................................................................................................120
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................125
Chapter 4 If you build it, will they come? Latino non-use of the SMMNRA ........127
Introduction..........................................................................................................127
Factors underpinning non-use of parks................................................................128
Spatial constraints to park visitation ................................................................131
Methods................................................................................................................134
Research design................................................................................................134
Focus group recruitment ..................................................................................136
Conducting the Focus Groups..............................................................................139
Findings................................................................................................................142
Recreational and leisure activities....................................................................142
Park visitation...................................................................................................145
Attitudes towards nature ..................................................................................149
Constraints to park access and use ...................................................................151
Discussion ............................................................................................................159
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................165
Conclusion: Are parks racialized landscapes? .........................................................167
Ameliorating spatial constraints to park use........................................................170
Directions for further research .............................................................................172
Park information...............................................................................................173
Park characteristics...........................................................................................174
Travel behaviors...............................................................................................174
Park location.....................................................................................................176
Gender ..............................................................................................................178
Final words...........................................................................................................179
Bibliography.............................................................................................................181

ix
Appendices...............................................................................................................217
Appendix 1 Survey form......................................................................................217
Appendix 2 Focus group questions......................................................................228
Appendix 3 Simplified focus group coding tree ..................................................229

x
List of Tables
Table 1 – Socio-demographic profile of trail users..................................................108
Table 2 – Comparison of visitors’ socio-demographic differences by race.............110
Table 3 – Patterns of visitation ................................................................................111
Table 4 – Reason for visiting the Santa Monica Mountains ....................................113
Table 5 - Reason for visiting a local park instead of the SMMNRA.......................114
Table 6 – Activities of trail users .............................................................................115
Table 7 – User conflict and problem activities ........................................................116
Table 8 – Sources of information about park flora and fauna .................................118
Table 9 – Attitudes towards the Santa Monica Mountains ......................................119
Table 10 – Socio-demographic characteristics of Latino users vs. non-users .........138
Table 11 – Participants’ recreational activities / leisure pursuits.............................144
Table 12 – Participants’ patterns of park visitation .................................................146

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Conceptual model .....................................................................................44
Figure 2 – Location of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area..............................60
Figure 3 – Baldwin Hills rancho (ca. 1880s) .............................................................64
Figure 4 – The Baldwin Hills Oilfield (ca. 1940s) ....................................................65
Figure 5 – The Baldwin Hills Village Green (ca. 1940s) ..........................................68
Figure 6 – Residents of the Baldwin Hills (ca. 1940)................................................69
Figure 7 – Kenneth Hahn at the launch of the park (ca. 1983). .................................75
Figure 8 – The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.........................97
Figure 9 – Location of the National Park.................................................................101
Figure 10 – A trailhead in the park ..........................................................................105
Figure 11 – Percent White population in neighborhoods surrounding the park ......122
Figure 12 – Percent Latino population in neighborhoods surrounding the park......123
Figure 13 and Figure 14 – English-language signs within the national park...........124
Figure 15 – The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.....................141
Figure 16 – Up-scale houses adjoining the national park ........................................157

xii
Abstract

Leisure researchers have found that park users in the United States are
predominantly White. They attribute ethno-racial variations in park use to socio-
demographic factors (e.g. class, age, gender and race / ethnicity). But park visitation
and use might also be shaped by socio-spatial factors (e.g. the inequitable
distribution of parks within cities). Geographers have infrequently studied parks, and
seldom examined how people use parks. This dissertation examines geographic
explanations for racially differentiated park use, from the perspectives of political
ecology, environmental justice, and cultural landscape. These analytical vantage
points redirect attention from park users to the historical, socio-ecological and
political-economic processes that operate through, and in turn configure park spaces.
They point to socio-spatial causes for racially differentiated park use.
Using a case study approach I investigate historical and contemporary
processes of racialization that have shaped park development in Los Angeles. I apply
a political ecology perspective to trace some of the political, economic, ecological
and institutional factors from the late 1920s onwards that resulted in the development
of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area. I attempt to deepen the understanding of
how local greenspace allocation, poverty, race and political power are oftentimes
complexly entangled. I also consider how urban national parks, designed in the
1970s to bring nature and recreational opportunities to disadvantaged communities,

xiii
may actually reproduce environmental inequities. Here I discuss my study of visitors
to Los Angeles’ Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area – the United
States’ largest urban national park. I found that park visitors were predominantly
White, affluent, and lived nearby. People of color traveled further, were significantly
less likely to be return visitors and were less inclined to use the park for active
recreation. My findings suggest that the park fails to meet the needs of socially
disadvantaged and vulnerable urban communities.
Finally, I investigate some factors responsible for the non-use of parks in Los
Angeles, focusing on how Latinos perceive the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area (SMMNRA). Although leisure researchers identify four types of
constraint that may be responsible for the non-use of parks (personal, social,
structural, and institutional), they have neglected spatial constraints (e.g. park
characteristics, distance, land use, etc.). Using focus groups I examined the
constraints experienced by Latinos living close to the park. I found that some Latinos
perceive the park to be difficult to access and unwelcoming. Features of the park and
adjacent neighborhoods appear impede park access for Latinos.
My research suggests that some parks in Los Angeles may be racialized
landscapes. Park management agencies should modify their outreach programs to
address spatial constraints to park use and to remedy inequities associated with
inferior park access.

1
Introduction: race, space and parks

‘…as we produce nature, so do we produce social relations’ (Katz and Kirby 1991: 268)

Positioned at the nature-society nexus, parks are hybrid biophysical and socio -
cultural entities (Whatmore 2002; Wilson 1991). Parks are infused with all sorts of
beliefs about the relationship between the environment and society and between
different social groups. Because park spaces are not ideologically neutral, parks can
tell us much about the values that underpin certain societies. Although geographers,
historians and others have worked over the past decade or more to unpack the
complex ideas of nature that underpin spaces like parks (e.g. Cronon 1996; Gandy
2002; Hermansen and Wynn 2005; e.g. Jones and Wills 2005; Olwig 1996), within
geography there is a relative paucity of park research. Further, existing geographic
research on parks is scattered and lacks theoretical coherence. Consequently, the
oftentimes complicated rationales underpinning park-making and remaking projects,
and the ideological and material work that parks perform, remain poorly understood.
For example, few, if any geographers have considered how socio-cultural constructs
like racial formations and ideas of nature intersect within park spaces.
As socially mediated natures, parks could potentially tell us much about
social relations, but leisure researchers, not geographers, have shaped most of our
knowledge about parks. Leisure researchers focus on how socio-cultural variables

2
(e.g. gender, age, racial, ethnic and socio-economic differences) explain people’s
park usage patterns and preferences. Importantly, leisure researchers have found
pronounced ethno-racial variations in how people visit and use parks in the United
States. They report that most park users are White. Leisure researchers suggest that
poverty, cultural differences and experiences of discrimination produce ethno-
racially differentiated patterns of park use. But what leisure researchers have
typically overlooked is how park spaces might influence park use; they treat parks as
largely homogeneous entities. Moreover, leisure theorists have used White park
usage patterns and behaviors as an index to assess the activities and predilections of
people of color. Their research suffers from inherent Anglo-normativity.
The spatial characteristics of parks, such as vegetation, park facilities and the
location of parks likely affect how people perceive and use them. It is also likely that
historical reasons underpinning park development, including the spatial distribution
of parks throughout urban areas, will similarly influence how people perceive and
use parks. But what is missing from park research is an appreciation of how spatial
dynamics and socio-cultural processes – such as historical patterns of racialization -
might come together to configure park accessibility and utilization. In other words,
we need research that specifically considers how park spaces shape social relations,
particularly how processes of racialization might have influenced the design,
management and location of parks over time, and how in turn parks have influenced
processes of racialization. This dissertation represents a step towards filling this
critical knowledge gap.

3
In this dissertation I examine how processes of racialization have mediated
the accessibility and use of two Los Angeles parks. Given the scope of the topic and
the depth of issues that I am considering here, the dissertation is intended as a point
of departure, an opening to a much broader and deeper conversation about parks and
race, rather than a comprehensive treatise. From the outset I recognize that there are
many lacunae that remain to be addressed.
In the dissertation I focus upon park development in Los Angeles. Los
Angeles is an important locus for research into how race might affect park use
because some of the city’s most park-deprived neighborhoods also number among
the nation’s most densely populated and socially heterogeneous places (Pincetl 2003;
Pincetl and Gearin 2005; Pulido 2000; Pulido et al. 1996; Wolch et al. 2005;
Zubrinsky and Bobo 1996). I employ a case study approach to examine the
particularities of ethno-racially differentiated access to, and use of two parks - the
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area and the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area. Both of these parks were created through very specific intersections
of Federal, State, and Local power, political contestation, social protest, citizen
activism and socio-ecological agendas.
The Kenneth Hahn State Park is now set to become the largest urban park in
the United States since the development of Central Park. When it was first created,
the park was already a benchmark for greenspace provision in Los Angeles
impoverished and socially marginalized communities. The Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area is now the largest urban national park in the US and is

4
located on the doorstep of downtown Los Angeles. It was developed at a time when
access to parks was seen as a vehicle to assuage racial tensions and recreation was
regarded as an effective means to redirect race-based antipathies. Since then the park
has become a treasured greenspace, but its use appears to be limited predominantly
to residents of the affluent White neighborhoods that surround the park.
In the chapters that follow, I explore some of the historical reasons behind the
development of these two parks, as well as the contemporary implications that
inferior park access has for people of color living in Los Angeles. I give particular
attention to how race-relations and racial formations have shaped, and in turn have
been shaped by, the two park spaces. My aim is to demonstrate that ethno-racial
differences in park use in Los Angeles, and by extension the United States, may have
socio-spatial causes that are historically constituted through processes of racial
formation.
The Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area for example, was developed in
response to local demands on the part of an African-American community for more
recreational open space. The park was championed by a White county supervisor
with a strong (if not paternalistic) interest in representing the needs of his
constituents. The creation of the park also saved a large patch of endangered coastal
sage scrub vegetation. In contrast, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area was championed by three middle-class White women who were keen to
preserve rapidly vanishing coastal sage scrub along the Santa Monica Mountains
which was under pressure from rampant property development. Their efforts

5
coincided with a push from the Federal Government to develop urban national parks,
a push that responded to what commentators at the time called ‘the urban problem’.
1

As it turned out, the preservation of this unique natural asset also created one of the
largest urban parks in the world, potentially providing access to nature and
recreational opportunities for socio-economically disadvantaged residents in the San
Fernando Valley, Oxnard and parts of inner city Los Angeles. Both of these parks
thus offer unique opportunities to investigate how the politics of race, place and
nature (in this case parks) have been co-constitutive in the United States.
I want to be clear that this dissertation does not present a comprehensive
historical account of the development of these two parks, nor does it pretend to
present a comprehensive history of parks and race in Los Angeles per se. Others
have already provided excellent park histories and some of this work suggests that
ethno-racial formations have shaped park development and use both inside and
outside the US (e.g. Floyd 1999; Marne 2001). Nor is this dissertation solely a park-
use study. Leisure researchers have admirably demonstrated that park use throughout
the United States is ethno-racially differentiated. Instead, what I aim to do here are
three things: (i) to show how processes of racialization have shaped the development
of particular park spaces in Los Angeles; (ii) to demonstrate that ethno-racially
differentiated park use has spatial as well as social causes; and (iii) to show that
inferior access to parks can have both social and environmental justice consequences

1
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, high rates of poverty, unemployment, housing stress and civil
unrest that gripped the nation’s largest inner city areas. Riots and other uprisings were commonplace.
Federal and local politicians saw parks as a potential safety valve.

6
for urban people of color. In doing this, I re-conceptualize park use as a product of
the intersection of race, space and nature, and demonstrate that what I have found in
Los Angeles has broader implications for park planning and management throughout
the United States, and also potentially in other settler societies.
Perhaps the most important contribution of the dissertation is that it shows
how parks should be included as legitimate sites of investigation within the
geographic study of race and nature within cities. Also, the dissertation attempts to
map out a research agenda on social aspects of the built environment that are barriers
to accessing environmental benefits within the city and the safety and health
repercussions of inequitable access to these important resources. The dissertation
focuses on the intentions behind the creation of certain types of park spaces rather
than the lived use of those spaces. Although I recognize that the latter is a critical
part of the story on parks and race, it was beyond the time and financial resources
available to investigate this aspect of parks and race, and thus represents an
important arena for future research.
Importantly, as I explain in chapter 1, current theories of park use lack
historical specificity and spatial perspicacity. These theories – many of which
originate within leisure studies – ignore the fact that park development in the United
States has been a part of a much bigger process of land and property development, a
process which up until 1948 segregated residential areas by race. Even after the
dissolution of racially restrictive housing covenants by the Supreme Court, patterns
and processes of racial discrimination persist through racially differentiated access to

7
housing, employment and recreational opportunities (De Graaf 1970). It is
impossible to separate who uses parks and how parks are used from histories of
racial prejudice and exclusion, and how these histories have configured ideologies of
park supply, theories of park management and day-to-day practices of park
administration. It should come as no surprise for example, to discover that Los
Angeles parks commissioners were all White until the late 1960s and the annual
reports of the Los Angeles Department of Parks and recreation did not feature people
of color until the mid-1970s.
Theoretical frame
Research for this dissertation has been informed by political ecology perspective,
complemented by theoretical insights from environmental justice and cultural
landscape. As a theoretical lens, political ecology is well-adapted to exploring
nature-society issues such as the ethno-racially differentiated parks usage. As Keith
Pezzoli (Pezzoli 2000: 27) has pointed out, political ecology ‘links ecological themes
with social struggles’ and interrogates ‘the relationship between environmental
change, socio-economic impact and political processes’. A political ecology
approach entails ‘charting out the field of power relations’ to better understand the
interactions between society and nature (Lipietz 1995; Pezzoli 2000: 31).
Specifically, political ecology research attempts to unpack the interconnections
between economic exploitation, environmental degradation, cultural politics and
grassroots activism (McCarthy 2002; Rocheleau et al. 1996; Watts 2000).

8
Geographers Blaikie and Brookfield (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987: 17) have
provided the most oft-cited definition of political ecology. Political ecology, they
state, is a research frame integrating the: ‘concerns of ecology and a broadly defined
political economy’; a theoretical approach premised upon the recognition that nature
and society are deeply imbricated (Bryant 1997; Bryant and Bailey 1997; Keil 2003;
Keil and Desfor 2003; Peet and Watts 1996; Stott and Sullivan 2000).
Socio-economically differentiated access to resources, and vulnerability to
environmental perturbations, are at the heart of political ecology research (Blaikie
1999; McCarthy 2002; Mustafa 2002; Rocheleau et al. 1996). Attentive to what
Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997: 1351) have termed ‘the social relations of power’,
political ecology analyses illuminate the extent to which human induced
environmental change (re)configures social and economic disadvantage, and
conversely how institutionalized marginalization impacts the environment. The
applicability of political ecology to my dissertation centers upon the ways that
particular ideas about nature - in this case parks - have been mobilized for specific
political and social ends.
Throughout the dissertation I draw upon several principles and ‘mid-range
concepts’ that under-gird most political ecology studies (Watts 2000: 591). They
include: ‘a refined concept of marginality in which political, ecological and
economic aspects may be mutually reinforcing’; a focus upon the ‘place’ of poverty
in environmental issues; the interrogation of the ‘facts’ of environmental
degradation; and the centrality of the imbricated nature of social relations and

9
ecology in producing environmental transformations (see also Robbins 2004). Other
important political ecology principles that inform my research include: providing
‘historical depth’ to environmental issues using multiple approaches to understand
the causes of marginalization and environmental degradation (as these issues are
rarely, if ever, the product of simple factors or processes); giving critical attention to
actors and institutions (e.g. activists, political agencies, non-profit organizations and
social movements); disentangling the historicity of what Escobar (1999) has called
‘techno-natures’ – versions of nature manipulated for human benefit; and
recognizing that we must critically appraise notions of what constitutes
‘development’ (Peet and Watts 1996: 6-28; Watts 2000: 591-592; Zimmerer 2000).
2

When considering ethno-racially differentiated park usage, one of the most
useful aspects of political ecology is how the perspective highlights politically and
economically constituted differential access to environmental resources (Bebbington
and Batterbury 2001; McCarthy 2002; Warner 2000). Political ecology research
(re)frames accessibility and vulnerability as key components of environmental
change among socially and / or economically marginalized peoples, especially in the
(re)distribution of environmental benefits such as fertile land, or harms such as soil
loss or water pollution (Escobar 1995; Potts 2000; Sullivan 2000). What I intend to
show in this dissertation is how race has shaped park development in the Los
Angeles in multiple ways, and that processes of racialization may have deeply

2
Escobar (1999) has defined techno-nature as the cyborg entity created by human intervention in such
things as plant and animal genetics, disease management, fertilizer production for soil enhancement
and the like.

10
inscribed many park spaces. In turn, the racialized character of these park spaces
may affect vulnerable and socially marginalized groups’ park-utilization choices –
with profound consequences for their mental and physical wellbeing.
Political ecology intersects with key concerns of the environmental justice
movement (Keil 2003; Miller et al. 1996), a movement that arose in response to the
disproportionate impact of environmental pollution and perturbations upon people of
color and low income earners in US cities (Bullard 1990; Bullard 1993; Pulido
2000). Environmental justice research highlights how access to healthy urban
environments is largely determined by socio-economic and political marginalization,
and deeply-rooted persistent racism (Pulido 2000). Questions about how class, race
and socio-political marginality configure access to (in)salubrious urban
environments feature prominently within the recent corpus of urban political ecology
and environmental justice research (Barnett 2001; Brownlow 2006; Huang et al.
2002; Pezzoli 2002; Wiltshire et al. 2000). Denial of access to urban parks and other
greenspace can have environmental justice consequences (Barnett 2001; Hurley
1995; Winqvist and Aeschbacher 2001; Wolch et al. 2005).
Political ecology and environmental justice theorists share a focus upon the
processes that relegate the poor and socially marginalized to unhealthy and
dangerous parts of the city, and how in turn vulnerable communities fight to gain
admission to more salubrious environments. But in the words of Paul Robbins, urban
political ecology: ‘can expand beyond simply identifying the unequal distribution of
risks…to explain how…urban ecologies are produced…Tracing flows…of garbage,

11
trees, energy, runoff, and disease through built urban space, and examining
governance of greenspaces’ (Robbins 2004: 216).
At the core of the political ecology approach then is a concern with the
metabolization of nature – the way that natural entities are consumed, digested and
transformed into ‘socio-natures’ (Gandy 2002; Robbins 2004; Swyngedouw 1999;
Swyngedouw and Hynen 2003; Zimmerer and Bassett 2003). A political ecology
approach to parks offers us a new way to understand how natural landscapes in the
city are fashioned by political, cultural and economic contestations, and casts light
on questions about who wins, and who loses in struggles over access to urban
greenspace.
Research questions
Three research questions underpin my dissertation. First, did racial ideology play a
role in the history of park development and park allocation in Los Angeles, and if so,
did it contribute to the current situation where many people of color have
disproportionately poor access to urban parks? And if park allocation and
development were historically racialized, did this affect the development of the
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area and the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area? This question aims to establish whether there has been a racialized
pattern of park provision in Los Angeles where people of color have been
discriminated against in both the level of park provision and in access to parks. The
question seeks to unpack White ideas about the moral, social and economic functions

12
of nature, and White’s actions to secure the most desirable natural environments for
themselves at the expense of people of color.
Second, do Latinos visiting the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area (SMMNRA) utilize the national park differently to other ethno-racial groups? If
so, what role do socio-demographic characteristics, levels of accessibility and the
preferences, attitudes, and values of Latino visitors play in patterns of utilization?
Leisure research on parks lacks historical specificity, and treats all parks as
homogenous landscapes. In answering this second question, I intend to show that the
types of activities, reasons for visiting parks, frequency of utilization, attitudes
towards nature and environmental values of Latinos and Whites are oftentimes
similar – suggesting that socio-cultural explanations from leisure studies may be too
simplistic.
3
However, Latinos’ perceptions of parks, sources of knowledge about
parks, reasons for visiting parks, ability to access parks and experiences of conflict
within parks may be very different to those of Whites, pointing to structural
determinants of ethno-racially differentiated patterns of park utilization.
Third, do Latino non-users of parks perceive some park spaces and their
environs as unwelcoming, or experience barriers to accessing particular parks, and if
so, does this affect their utilization decisions? This question gets at specific factors
that configure non-utilization of the SMMNRA by Latinos. To answer this question I
have investigated the possibility that Latinos perceive the SMMNRA as a White

3
I recognize that there may still be distinct differences between ethno-racial groups and do not want
to diminish the cultural importance and validity of these differences.

13
space, and thus as unwelcoming or even dangerous. I critique some stereotypes and
misconceptions that Latinos are interested only in developed settings, and the idea
that Latinos are indifferent to nature, engaging only in a limited range of recreational
activities focused on the family (Hester Jr. et al. 1999). I argue that: (i) past
experience may play a stronger role in shaping Latino attitudes towards – and desire
to access - urban greenspace than has previously been documented; (ii) that Latinos’
experiences of racism in parks may have a stronger effect on their park use decisions
than has previously been reported; and (iii) that Latinos may consequently be
deprived of many of the multiple benefits that parks provide. I also highlight various
barriers to access and examine whether these could be related to factors such as
automobile dependence or Latinos’ perceptions of parks spaces and who uses them.
Structure of the dissertation
The dissertation is structured into four chapters. Each chapter addresses aspects of
the above three questions. In the first chapter I map out the theoretical frame and
conceptual model that underpins the research. Using a genealogical approach, I
briefly trace the history of park-making in the United States, focusing on the core
ideologies that have infused park development. Here I give special consideration to
the role of ethno-racial formations in park making projects. The chapter weaves
together several theoretical perspectives from leisure studies, history and geography,
to better understand what parks are, how people use them, and the various benefits

14
that people derive from visiting parks. This chapter also reviews the key literature on
parks and summarizes the findings of relevant research.
In the second chapter I address the first research question, applying the
conceptual model that I outline in chapter 1 to demonstrate how the making of Los
Angeles Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area illuminates some of the economic,
political, historical, cultural and environmental factors that have shaped park projects
within the city. Discussing parks as distinctive socio-natures imbued with ideological
and moral purposes, and focusing on contestations over the development of this park,
my examination of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area attempts to develop a
historical political ecology of parks that is sensitive to race.
In this chapter I employ three research methods. The first is archival research,
including City Park Commission extracts from 1889 onwards, Playground
Commission extracts from 1904 onwards, annual reports from the City of LA’s
Playground and Recreation Department and Parks Department, reports from the
Regional Planning Commission and relevant journal articles such as the 1931 issue
of Western City, devoted exclusively to parks and recreation, together with key texts
such as Dana Bartlett’s 1907 book The Better City and Griffith J. Griffith’s text
Parks, Boulevards and Playgrounds. I also use interviews with staff from key
agencies such as the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation to
bring life to archival material, and Geographic Information Systems analysis to track
historical socio-demographic changes in the suburbs surrounding the park –

15
illustrating how the spatial concentration of social disadvantage coincided with
declining environmental quality.
In the third chapter I shift scales from the local to the regional, from a State
Park to a National Park. This chapter is intended to counter-point chapter 2. Here I
explore the notion that Los Angeles’ racial formations may produce ethno-racial
differences in park utilization. Whereas in chapter 2 I focused on a park
predominantly utilized by African-Americans, this chapter discusses my research of
a park predominantly utilized by Whites. And where chapter 2 was largely historical,
this chapter investigates contemporary use of the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, highlighting ethno-racial disparities among park visitors.
In this chapter I address the second research question. To do this I analyze
data from a 2002 survey of trail users that I conducted with colleagues from the USC
Center for Sustainable Cities and with volunteers from the National Park Service. I
employ various bivariate statistical tests (t-tests and Chi-square) to consider how
types of use, frequency of visitation, sources of information, attitudes towards nature
and experiences of conflict vary according to the ethno-racial background of park
users. I show that theories from leisure studies do not adequately account for patterns
of ethno-racially differentiated usage of this park, and suggest that what we need is
an alternative approach to park research and different theoretical perspectives.
In Chapter 4 I switch perspectives to examine how the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area might function as a racialized landscape. In this
chapter I discuss the findings of focus group research that I undertook in 2003 with

16
Latino non-users of the national park. Here I explore the idea that park visitation is
not simply the product of socioeconomic disparities, or ethno-racial proclivities, but
may also be configured by the park space itself and the environs within which the
park is situated. The chapter addresses my third research question. An important
distinction with the preceding chapter is that I focus on non-users of the park. In so
doing, I consider how potential visitors perceive a park space – as safe or dangerous,
welcoming or unwelcoming, inclusive or exclusionary - may strongly influence their
decisions about whether or not to visit that park. Here I used focus groups to
consider how the attitudes, values, beliefs and norms of Latinos might influence their
choices to visit and use certain parks.
The focus group questions in this study explored a range of factors
potentially related to ethno-racially differentiated park use, including recreational
preferences, levels of awareness of the national park, experiences of barriers to
access, non-users’ perceptions of who uses the park, their reasons for not visiting the
park, and their attitudes towards nature (see appendix 2). Using narratives from the
focus group participants, I highlight reasons for the non-use of parks that have not
been reported elsewhere. This research element informs a discussion about symbolic
and material reasons for the non-use of parks. My findings suggest that Latinos may
perceive the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area as a predominantly
White space, and may thus feel unwelcome in the park.
I conclude the dissertation by summarizing my research findings, and
discussing some policy implications of these findings. I suggest directions for future

17
research, recognizing that my work is not definitive but rather is just the beginning of
a much bigger project on race, space and parks.

18
Chapter 1 Race, space and parks: A conceptual frame

Introduction
Parks are rarely innocuous elements of the urban landscape. Paradoxically described
as crime havens, treasured family refuges, and oases for urban wildlife and residents,
parks vary in size, age, design, ornamental embellishments, planting, facilities,
maintenance, and patterns of use. Their constitutive elements – trees, grass,
pathways, benches, ponds, fountains, playgrounds, sporting facilities etc. – reflect
diverse ideologies of park-making. Historically parks have been idealized as
salubrious spaces (Frederick Law Olmsted’s ‘lungs of city’), as well as places of
social interaction and tutelage, inscription of cultural identity and memory, and
tourist destinations designed to promote real estate development and profit. All
levels of government have been involved in park design and management. It is very
peculiar then that geographers, as scholars of the nature-society interface, have
seldom studied parks.
Outside geography, parks have attracted substantial and diverse scholarship.
Park researchers have typically investigated four fields: (i) the history and ideology
of parks (e.g. Cavett et al. 1982; Cranz 1982; Cranz and Boland 2003; Cranz and
Boland 2004; Gordon 2002; Lehr 2001; Maver 1998; McInroy 2000; McIntire 1981;
Menéndez 1998; Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992); (ii) park access and utilization

19
(e.g. Aminzadeh and Afshar 2004; May and Rogerson 1995; McCleave et al. 2006;
Oguz 2000; Oltremari and Jackson 2006; Pavlikakis and Tsihrintzis 2006; Perez-
Verdin et al. 2004; Schwartz 2006; Smardon and Faust 2006); (iii) the potential of
parks to foster sustainable urban livelihoods (e.g. Chiesura 2004; Domene et al.
2005; Huang et al. 2002; e.g. Pezzoli 2000; 2002; Pincetl and Gearin 2005); and (iv)
the ‘nature’s services’ benefits of parks - the latter typically being couched upon the
health and wellbeing of urban residents (e.g. Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; Daily
1997; Farber et al. 2002; Gobster 2001; Hough 1994; Hougner et al. 2005; Savard et
al. 2000). The most frequently investigated topic is park utilization.
Research on park use shows us that people use parks in diverse ways.
Differences in patterns of utilization are attributed to socio-demographic factors such
as class, age, gender and race / ethnicity. Race and ethnicity in particular have
captured leisure researchers interest; their investigations of park usage reveal ethno-
racial distinctions in how Whites and people of color visit and use parks (Floyd and
Shinew 1999; Gobster 2002; Hutchison 1987; Lee 1972; Payne et al. 2002; Shinew
et al. 2004; Tinsley et al. 2002; West 1989). These ethno-racial differences extend to
national parks and open space at the urban-wildlands interface (Carr and Williams
1993; Ewert et al. 1993; 2001; Gobster 2002; Johnson et al. 1998; Tierney et al.
2001; Washburn 1978). But leisure researchers have rarely considered how park
spaces might configure park use - a remarkable oversight.
Although it is patchy and lacks theoretical coherence, geographic research on
parks has a wide scope. Such research includes examinations of parks’ historical

20
origins, distribution and accessibility; patterns of use, safety, and user perceptions;
and various park benefits (e.g. Foresta 1984; e.g. Henderson and Wall 1979;
Hingston 1931; Jim 1989; Lawrence 1993; Madge 1997; Marne 2001; Stillwell
1963; Ulrich 1979; Ulrich and Addoms 1981; Westover 1985; Wolfe 1964; Young
1996). Recently, strands of park-related research have emerged within cultural
landscape, environmental justice and political ecology research paradigms, and some
geographers have begun to weave these strands into a coherent research agenda,
examining for instance, ‘how and why specific nature-culture assemblages like parks
are produced’ (Braun 2005), and who has access to these diverse culture-natures
(Brownlow 2005; Brownlow 2006; Heynen 2003; 2006; Heynen and Perkins 2005;
Neumann 1996; Olwig 1996; 2005; Swyngedouw and Hynen 2003; Wolch et al.
2005).
In this chapter I discuss geographic studies investigating the spatiality of
parks, and park use specifically. The discussion is divided into four sections. Taking
a cue from Katz and Kirby (1991), Pulido et al. (1996) and Brownlow (2005; 2006),
in the first section I examine how geographers have studied the ideologies of class,
race and nature that have historically infused park-making projects. As Loukaitou-
Sideris (1995: 89) has noted, ‘past ideas and values about…parks continue to
dominate and determine their present design and programming’. I do not provide a
comprehensive history of parks here - others have already done that (e.g. Chadwick
1966; Conway 1991; Cranz 1978; 1982; Lasdun 1992). Instead I draw loosely upon
Foucault’s (1977; 1980) genealogical approach to chart the sometimes contradictory

21
ideological terrain of ‘the park idea’ as a socio-natural project (Jones and Wills
2005), and how park-making ventures have molded socio-ecological relations of
power within cities, especially patterns of access to, and utilization of, urban nature.
In the second section I examine leisure studies explanations for ethno-racially
differentiated park utilization (albeit concisely due to space limitations). Here I
review leisure researchers’ findings and theories about park use. Much of that
literature is underpinned by striking Anglo-normativity as many leisure scholars
regard White activities and preferences as an index to measure other ethno-racial
groups’ predilections (Floyd 1998). I give these explanations critical attention and
show how leisure researchers have usually overlooked the spatiality of parks.
In the third section, I consider how geographers and others have recently
begun to explore the socio-ecological relations of power invested within nature
spaces like parks. Their findings offer fresh insights into ethno-racially differentiated
park use. Insights from environmental justice, political ecology and cultural
landscape perspectives challenge simplistic explanations for how people of color
access and use urban greenspace (e.g. Brownlow, 2006). Prompted by this literature,
I reconceptualize ethno-racially differentiated park use as an outcome of the
interplay between: (i) the historically and culturally contingent context of park
provision; (ii) the characteristics of park users; the physical and ecological
characteristics of park spaces; and (iii) how both users and non-users might perceive
those spaces. In the final section of the chapter I draw upon this conceptual
framework to consider how geographers are taking up the challenge of

22
reconceptualizing park use. I show how the ensuing two case studies – the first
which examines the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area and the second which
examines the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area – fit within this
conceptual framework.
Park studies in geography
It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to discuss all contributions that geographers
have made to the study of parks, because the breadth of these studies is not always
relevant to the issues I address here. Consequently, I restrict my review to research
that examines park-making and park use, focusing specifically on issues of race and
ethnicity. I discern four thematic groupings of geographic research into park-making
as a socio-ecological project: (i) the study of ideologies underpinning park creation -
especially how parks were created as ‘culture-natures’ often intended as technologies
of social control; (ii) investigations into how multiple axes of difference (e.g. race,
class, gender) have historically configured park spaces; (iii) research into the
colonial and imperial roles of parks and park-like spaces; and (iv) research
documenting the ecosystem services provided by parks.
Parks as elitist ‘culture-natures’
The ‘park idea’ is infused with very specific beliefs about nature. Parks are in
essence nature’s artifice - elaborate simulacra (Katz and Kirby 1991; Willems-Braun
1997). Kenneth Olwig (1996) for example has traced the etymology of the word park

23
to mean ‘enclosed’ or ‘captive’ nature.
4
Urban parks are socially mediated ecologies
with deep roots. They originate from the aristocratic park and garden landscapes of
ancient Greece, India, China, and the Middle-East; European medieval deer parks;
and more recently from the elaborately landscaped estates of European gentry.
5

Henry Lawrence (1993) has shown how the English aristocracy for example,
imported the pastoral nature aesthetic into the city by creating residential squares.
6

The wealthy typically appropriated greenspace for the new squares by privatizing
and forcibly enclosing commons - park-like lands to which peasants (and indirectly
the working class) had a traditional form of entitlement (c.f. Neumann 1996).
Subsequent conflicts over access to urban greenspace ultimately resulted in the
opening of the Royal Parks to the public, and later in the creation of the first English
public parks (Chadwick 1966; Lasdun 1992; Lawrence 1993; Marne 2001;
Thompson 1998).
But the impetus for urban park movement exceeded mere aesthetics. Park
reformers in the 19th century regarded urban parks as medical technologies - Young
(2004) has called them biological ‘machine[s] to transform a flawed society’ alluding
to parks as instruments of ecological modernization (see also Gandy 2002; Szczygiel

4
This definition is problematic because it encompasses ant farms, window boxes and swimming
pools. But the definitional slipperiness of the park concept shows us how these recreational spaces
should not be taken for granted.
5
Geographer Ellen Churchill Semple (1929) was one of the first to consider the nature of parks. Her
examination of ancient Mediterranean parks and gardens was richly descriptive, detailing complex
social ecologies. Semple linked park-making with the cultural practices of urban elites.
6
Parks in the United States—including commons, squares, pleasure grounds and public parks—trace
their heritage to European antecedents, with the exception of the national park, a uniquely American
invention.

24
and Hewitt 2000). Nineteenth century public health theories postulated that maladies
were directly linked to the characteristics of landscapes - especially wetlands and
swamps. Vapors or ‘miasmas’ around ‘low-lying’ landscapes were believed to
transmit diseases like cholera and typhoid (Driver 1988; Lawrence 1993; Szczygiel
and Hewitt 2000).
Park reformers shared this deterministic conception of nature (Domosh 1992;
Driver 1988; Lawrence 1993; Taylor 1999; Young 1996). They believed that social
problems had environmental roots. Park reformers theorized that exposure to the
right kind of nature would ‘uplift’ individuals, making them healthy, morally proper,
socially responsible, economically prudent and quick witted (Baldwin 1999; Cranz
1978; 1982; Gagen 2004; Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992), whereas contact with
untamed or miasmatic natures invited melancholia and corruption (Baldwin 1999;
Driver 1988; Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992; Szczygiel and Hewitt 2000). Parks
were also believed to have the power to overcome anarchy, immorality, crime and
indolence (Baldwin 1999; Boyer 1978; Schuyler 1986; Young 1996). Parks became
in effect both the ‘lungs’ and ‘conscience of the city’ (French 1973; Griffith 1910;
Patmore 1983).
Tracing the evolution of urban parks in America, Young (1995; 1996; 2001;
2004), has explained how parks like Golden Gate Park in San Francisco were
progressively transformed as public health theories modernized and park-making
discourses shifted first from therapeutic to ‘democratic’ concerns and then, with the
1930s burgeoning recreation movement, to effectiveness and efficiency concerns.

25
Parks became spatially segregated into playgrounds, museums, outdoor concert
venues and public garden spaces and their functions increased in complexity.
7
Social
mixing, moral uplift and physical fitness (both of the individual body and how that
body ‘fit’ within society) were the principle roles of parks (Cranz 1978; 1982; Gagen
2004; Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992; Schenker 1996; Schuyler 1986). But the
primary impetus behind park-making remained largely social control (Brownlow
2006; Katz and Kirby 1991; Taylor 1999).
For example, America’s first public park makers - Frederick Law Olmstead,
Calvert Vaux, and their contemporaries - argued that by increasing contact between
the classes, parks would foster democratic inclusiveness (Rosenzweig and Blackmar
1992). But geographer Pauline Marne (2001) has shown that despite the rhetoric,
industrial-age parks in England were rarely democratic spaces. Indeed, the urban
poor and ethnic minorities initially contested park-making projects, especially those
with elitist aspirations - a situation that also occurred across the Atlantic. Tensions
became so bad in several American parks including Lincoln Park in Chicago and
Griffith Park in Los Angeles that ‘race riots’ erupted within the parks, where - as
White (1918 / 1919: 296) noted: ‘colored [sic] men, women and children were
beaten…so severely that they had to be taken to hospital’ for venturing into what
was held to be ‘whites-only’ space (Davis 2002; French 1973; The Chicago

7
Sociologist Gaelen Cranz (1983) noted that parks eventually evolved into four main types based on
their function—pleasure ground, reform park, recreation facility and open space system. Each had
distinctive attributes promoting specific activities (e.g. pleasure gardens promoted social intercourse
whereas recreation facilities fostered physical exercise). Recently, ecological parks have joined the
typology.

26
Commission on Race Relations 1922; Tuttle Jr. 1996; Wolcott 2006). Rather than
‘melting pots’, many parks functioned as ‘pressure cookers’ (Loukaitou-Sideris
1995).
Spaces of exclusion: class and race in the park
American park makers radically altered urban ecologies. They used new industrial
technologies to excavate untold tons of rock, sculpt soil, relocate trees, fill wetlands,
dam streams, and create lakes (Chadwick 1966). In so doing, they displaced flora,
fauna and people, and introduced a vast array of new species to fashion what
Matthew Gandy (2002) has labeled the ‘urban pastoral’ (see also Bischoff 1994;
Spirn 1984; Spirn 1996).
8
We can see from Gandy’s (2002) work on New York’s
Central Park how the urban pastoral ideal affected the lives of the city’s poorest and
most vulnerable residents, usually for the worse (see also Rosenzweig and Blackmar
1992).
Observing that Central Park was conceived as a microcosm of Jeffersonian
pastoral values - family orientation, access to nature, and strong social bonds -
Gandy (2002) recounts how the park was designed to impart civilizing sensibilities.
Central Park and its imitators enacted elitist ideals of morality and refinement -
creating a binary ‘moral geography’. The city was conceived as artificial, profane,
insalubrious, and colored whereas parks were natural, sanctifying, wholesome, and
White (also see Baldwin 1999; Domosh 1992; Driver 1988; Matless 1997; 1998).

8
Deer parks were especially influential: nobles who forcibly displaced peasants from traditional
farmlands to create their hunting estates bequeathed a distinctive ‘nature’ aesthetic—scattered copses
of large trees (sheltering deer from the elements) underlain by grassy meadows (launds i.e lawn), a
bucolic nature that nineteenth century park makers sought to emulate (Taylor, 2004).

27
Interlocking political, economic, moral and medical discourses justified park creation
(Storman 1991), but park reformers also responded to capitalist imperatives (Katz
and Kirby 1991).
9

Park making led to the gentrification of formerly blighted areas of the
industrial city, displacing socio-economically vulnerable residents, many of whom
were working poor and people of color (Baldwin 1999; Rosenzweig and Blackmar
1992; Schuyler 1986; Taylor 1999).
10
For example, African-American and Irish
families were evicted from Seneca Village when it was razed to create Central Park.
Early parks like Central Park were also initially developed far from public
transportation and not within walking distance of working class tenements
(Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992; Schuyler 1986; Young 1995).
11
When public
parks later became accessible to a more diverse clientele, strict behavioral rules and
dress codes imposed cultural norms of the elite upon the working class and
immigrants (Cosgrove 1995; Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992; Taylor 1999;
Thompson 1998). Park rules, together with the design of park spaces constrained the
enjoyment of early parks by the working class and people of color (Baldwin 1999;
Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992; Schenker 1996; Schuyler 1986; Taylor 1999).
Some parks were even racially segregated, seemingly as a consequence of
eugenicist ideologies and fears of miscegenation (Paulson 1982). For instance, Los

9
Many of the early English parks – though putatively public spaces, were in fact sited on private
estates, and were designed as speculative ventures (Lasdun, 1992).
10
People of color were also excluded from working on many park development projects (Rosenzweig
and Blackmar, 1992).
11
Early fares for public transportation were beyond the means of many working class residents
(Baldwin, 1999; DeBlasio, 2001; Hall, 1977).

28
Angeles’ infamous park benefactor Griffith J. Griffith in his self-published manifesto
on park development, shows how early park reformers placed race at the heart of
justifications for urban parks. Citing Nordau’s work on ‘racial degeneration’, Griffith
suggested that parks played a crucial role in fostering White ‘racial purity’ (Griffith
1910: 18-19) and overcoming ‘slum morality’. Such beliefs were translated into
spatial practices. In 1918 the City of Pasadena racially ‘segregated its public
playgrounds’ (De Graaf 1970: 341) and by the mid 1920s, the Los Angeles City
Playground Commission had segregated municipal swimming pools (De Graaf 1970:
345; Moss 1996: 229). Beaches were also closed to African-Americans during this
period and attempts to develop beach resorts for people of color were quickly halted
by oftentimes angry and violent White residents afraid of how this might impact their
property values (De Graaf 1970).
This situation occurred elsewhere in the United States. Boyd Shearer (1999)
has described how in the South, Jim Crow ideologies produced racially and spatially
segregated parks and gymnasia. Most Southern states had racially segregated park
systems, usually with separate administrators (McKay 1954; South Carolina
Department of Parks Recreation and Tourism 2007; Taylor 1956; Washington 1928).
In Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas however, there were no state park facilities
available for people of color, leading (McKay 1954: 703) to assert that: ‘the
differences are more pronounced in this field than in any other area in which
distinctions based on race persist’. In some states (e.g. Louisiana) the practice of
racially segregating parks continued through the 1950s (Taylor 1956).

29
Moreover, despite the segregationist doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ access to
facilities, parks designated for people of color were generally smaller, received far
less funding, and had fewer facilities (McKay 1954; Meyer 1942; Shearer 1999).
They were typically located on the outskirts of town on land that was ill-suited for
other development (Baldwin 1999; Foster 1999; Shearer 1999).
And while not legally segregated, many northern and mid-western cities also
had separate parks for Whites and people of color, oftentimes polarized into a park-
deprived urban core occupied mainly by people of color, and a park-abundant
suburban periphery largely occupied by Whites (Kraus 1969). Incidents of
discrimination were also commonplace in parks, swimming pools and beaches within
these cities, even where racial segregation of such places was illegal (Rabkin 1954).
The exclusion of the poor and people of color was also a hallmark of national
parks. National parks were founded upon middle and upper class sensibilities and
eugenicist ideologies about pristine wilderness, created to evoke ‘feelings of social
belonging, kinship, and custom’ (Mels 2002: 137-138). Wilderness ideals were
complicit in the dispossession of Native Americans from land designated for national
parks (Cosgrove 1995; Spence 1999), legitimized through quasi-scientific discourses
of custodianship and stewardship (Chase 1987; Spence 1999). The restorative
powers of wildernesses were to be guarded carefully, and the Native American
presence in national park landscapes contradicted colonists’ delusions of pristine
nature. National parks, like zoos and agricultural shows, were spatially codified as
distinctively ‘White natures’ (Anderson 2003).

30
Both Denis Cosgrove (1995) and Terry Young (1996) have noted that the
urban parks and national parks movements shared common protagonists with similar
aims and reformist ideals (also see Storman 1991). Movement leaders envisaged
‘parks, at any scale, as vehicles to improve society by fostering…an ideal moral
order’ (Young 1996: 460). Cosgrove (1995) linked the emergence of the national
park movement in the United States to racial fervor centering upon the creation of a
White nation with abundant natural capital, compensating for the perceived lack of
cultural sophistication that Americans thought Europe possessed (Grusin 1998;
Neumann 1996; Spence 1999). National parks also ‘represented the kind of
environment in which earlier - and racially purer - immigrants were believed to have
forged American identity’ (Cosgrove 1995: 35).
The imperial park
Parks in various guises aided colonial expansion in India, Africa and Australasia.
Colonial elites used them to secure environments favorable to ‘European
civilization’ (Endfield and Nash 2002; Eves 2005; Kenny 1995; Neumann 1996).
Like their English and American counterparts, game parks, nature preserves, national
parks and hill stations were physical manifestations of racist ideology (Cosgrove
1995; Driver 1988; Endfield and Nash 2002; Kenny 1995). Judith Kenny (1995: 698)
for instance, has shown that in India the British Hill Stations - which resembled
parks - spatially segregated the British from the Indians and like urban parks, enacted
the tenets of miasmatic medical theory. Native Indians were confined to insalubrious
environments while the British sequestered the cooler, verdant and less populated

31
hill country for themselves, even temporarily moving the seats of government to the
hill stations during the hottest periods of the year (Kenny 1995).
Similar ideas were operating in elite game ‘preserves’ and national parks in
colonial Africa. Roderick Neumann (1996) explains how themes of dispossession of
traditional owners, the forcible enclosure of productive agricultural land, ideologies
of White supremacy and racial purity, and practices of reading moral order through
the landscape also shaped African national parks. Neumann shows that racist
discourse on parks derived from imperial England; the ‘same families who
‘naturalized’ their private parks through enclosure acts in England also led the cause
to ‘naturalize’ the African landscape through national park development and
concomitant acts of dispossession (Neumann 1996: 95).
The park idea was also imported into Singapore, China, and Japan by
colonial administrators as a way of managing local populations (Shi 1998; Waley
2005; Yuen 1996b). Although Asian cities already had park and garden spaces, such
as Imperial palace gardens, temple gardens, and military parade grounds (Shi 1998;
Waley 2005), the Anglo-American idea of the park was quite different to those
spaces. Colonial parks in Asia mimicked European counterparts, and had similar
purposes (Shi 1998; Waley 2005; Yeo and Teo 1996). Yeo and Teo for example tell
how the creator of the Tiger Balm Gardens sought to ‘edify and instruct the common

32
folk in Chinese morality’ (Yeo and Teo 1996: 33; also see Yuen 1996a; Yuen
1996b).
12

Given the reformist and elitist intent behind early park development and the
ideologies behind park creation, many parks have paradoxically come to be treasured
refuges, sanctuaries from urban life for those fortunate enough to have access to
them. Despite their shortcomings, parks provide urban residents with tangible
benefits.
Park benefits and access to nature’s services
Urban parks benefit city dwellers in numerous ways. An exhaustive discussion lies
beyond the scope of this dissertation, but a brief overview illustrates the diverse
social and ecological benefits of parks (for a detailed discussion see Driver et al.
1991). For example, Roger Ulrich and his collaborators (Ulrich 1979; Ulrich 1984;
Ulrich and Addoms 1981; Ulrich et al. 1990; Ulrich et al. 1991) have demonstrated
how parks can improve mental health by providing psychological relief from the
stresses of city life (see also Hung and Crompton 2006; Kaplan 2001; Kaplan et al.
2004; Kuo 2001; Orsega-Smith et al. 2004). Just looking at scenes of urban
greenspace can advance recovery for patients recuperating from surgery, and contact
with nature can assuage anxiety (see also de Vries et al. 2003; Kaplan 2001; Kleiber
et al. 2002; Kuo 2001; Maller et al. 2005; Orsega-Smith et al. 2004). Parks may have

12
In Australia colonial parks performed analogous functions. Ian Hoskins (2003) has noted
how ‘concerns with the stamina of the race’ and the ‘development of a culture of
respectability’ motivated authorities to crackdown on behaviors such as sexual activity,
gambling, pan-handling and drunkenness in Sydney’s first public park – Hyde Park.

33
a role in mitigating sedentary lifestyles associated with obesity, heart disease and
several types of cancer (e.g. Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005; Ho et al. 2005; Orsega-Smith
et al. 2004).
Community gardens have become a recent feature of many inner city parks
(Barnett 2001; Maller et al. 2005; Nuru and Konschink 2000; Swanson 2005; Tittle
2002). This is important because diseases associated with obesity such as diabetes
mellitus, coronary heart disease and several forms of cancer have been found to be
particularly prevalent among inner city communities of color, who cannot afford and
cannot access quality food (LaVonna et al. 2005), and who live in environments that
may not be conducive to physical activity (Ewing 2003; Frank 2005; LaVonna et al.
2005; Pastor et al. 2005).
Parks may also improve property values, increase socialization, promote
child development and mitigate incivility (Aminzadeh and Afshar 2004; Crewe
2001; Gobster 2001; Gray 1973; Harnik 2000; Heynen 2006; Jones and Wills 2005;
Manning and More 2002; Mitchell 1995; Mitchell and Staeheli 2005; Pincetl 2003).
Geographers have also identified ecosystem or nature’s services provided by
parks. These include the regulation of ambient temperatures, air filtration, noise
reduction, habitat provision and protection of biodiversity, storm-water infiltration
(see Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; Burgess et al. 1988; McIntyre et al. 1991;
Swanwick et al. 2003). Vegetation contained within parks sequesters carbon and
mitigates storm-water flooding (Heynen 2006).

34
Unfortunately the benefits of parks are not equally accessible. Several
geographers have recently demonstrated how natures’ services benefits are denied to
vulnerable populations (e.g. Wolch et al. 2005). The homeless, people of color,
students, community gardeners and other groups are often systematically displaced
from many urban parks (Mitchell, 1995; Smith, 2002; Mitchell and Steheli, 2005,
Brownlow, 2005, 2006; Byrne et al, 2007). The environmental justice implications of
disproportionately poor access to the nature’s services benefits that parks provide
have yet to be fully investigated, and social exclusion from parks and greenspace
remains a critical concern, to which I will return.
Racially differentiated park use
People visit parks for a wide variety of reasons, including tourism, recreation,
exercise, relaxation, education, encountering nature, spirituality, socializing, being
with companion animals, escaping the city, solitude, personal development and
earning a living (Hayward 1989; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Manning and More 2002;
McIntyre et al. 1991). There are also numerous illicit reasons why people visit parks
- from the prosaic to the potentially violent - including homelessness, voyeurism,
exhibitionism, sexual gratification, drug use, thievery etc. (Kornblum 1983;
McDonald and Newcomer 1973).
People also undertake diverse activities when they visit parks, spanning both
active recreation - e.g. walking (with companion animals), hiking, swimming, riding
bicycles, running, jogging, and playing sports; and passive recreation - e.g. sun

35
bathing, picnicking, painting, fishing, photography, reading, dancing, playing with
children or animals, playing musical instruments, studying nature, and people-
watching (Hayward 1989). Rights of passage also occur in parks - for example
weddings, funerals and birthday parties - but they are rarely mentioned in the
literature (Gobster 2002; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995 are notable exceptions).
Since the Civil Rights Era, leisure researchers have found that class, race,
ethnicity and gender strongly differentiate park visitors (for a detailed overview see
Floyd 1998; Floyd 1999; for a detailed overview see Floyd et al. 1993; Floyd et al.
1994). Park visitors are disproportionately White, wealthy, well educated, and
typically live nearby in households without children (Gobster 2002; Lee 1972;
Lindsey et al. 2001; McDonald and Newcomer 1973; Payne et al. 2002; Rishbeth
2001; Shinew et al. 2004; Virden and Walker 1999). Studies of both urban and
national parks have revealed strong ethno-racial differences in utilization (e.g.
Washburn 1978), and thus warrant exploration.
Variations by race, ethnicity and nativity
Various ethno-racial groups have distinct preferences for leisure settings, reasons for
visiting parks and favored park / leisure activities (for detailed reviews see Floyd
2001; Husbands and Idahosa 1995).
13
According to park researchers, African-
Americans reputedly enjoy more sociable, formal, sports-oriented, urban park

13
There is much confusion within the leisure studies literature about the differences between race and
ethnicity. I distinguish between the two on the basis that ethnicity refers to putative socio-cultural
distinctiveness between populations—i.e. food preferences, norms and mores, religion, music,
clothing etc., whereas race is a construct focusing on purported physignomic distinctiveness—e.g.
hair, skin color, facial features etc. Like Omi and Winant (1994), I affirm that there is no biological
basis to race.

36
settings, whereas Whites may prefer wilderness, secluded nature, trees and
vegetation, and a focus on individualism (Floyd and Shinew 1999; Gobster 2002; Ho
et al. 2005; Hutchison 1987; Johnson et al. 1998; Payne et al. 2002; Talbot and
Kaplan 1993; Taylor 1989; Tierney et al. 2001; Virden and Walker 1999; Washburn
1978).
14
Asians may value ‘scenic beauty’ over recreational functionality (Gobster
2002; Ho et al. 2005; Payne et al. 2002), while some studies have found that Latinos
prefer ‘a more developed environment’ with good access to group facilities such as
parking, picnic tables and restrooms (Baas et al. 1993: 526; see also Hutchison 1987;
Irwin et al. 1990).
Reasons for visiting parks also vary by race / ethnicity. Patterns noted across
a variety of studies suggest that Whites may seek to be by themselves and to
exercise, African-Americans look for organized recreation opportunities, Latinos go
to parks to socialize, typically with extended family groups and also to enjoy ‘fresh
air’, and Asians apparently also favor park visits with extended family or organized
groups, but may do so to escape social responsibilities and to exercise (Dwyer 1997;
Floyd et al. 1994; Gobster 2002; Ho et al. 2005; Hutchison 1987; Payne et al. 2002;
Philipp 1997; Sasidharan et al. 2005; Scott and Munson 1994). Tierney et al. (2001:
275) noted that African-Americans are significantly less likely than other ethno-
racial groups to visit natural areas like parks, but Johnson et al. (1998) found that this
was not true African-Americans from rural areas.

14
Johnson et al. (1998) found that in rural areas, African-Americans prefer hunting and fishing and
poor African-Americans visit forests in greater numbers than poor Whites.

37
With respect to park activities, Latinos engage in sedentary and informal
social activities such as picnicking and barbecues, but also enjoy soccer, camping
and hiking (Baas et al. 1993; Gobster 2002; Hutchison 1987; Sasidharan et al. 2005).
Other studies of preferences indicate that African-Americans may prefer sport and
organized recreation like basketball, but also enjoy sitting and talking and walking
(Dwyer 1997; Floyd et al. 1994; McGuire et al. 1987; Payne et al. 2002; Sasidharan
et al. 2005; Shinew et al. 2004). Whites disproportionately appear to enjoy camping,
hiking, hunting, boating and also enjoy swimming, cycling and dog-walking (Baas et
al. 1993; Floyd et al. 1994; Gobster 2002). Studies of Asians emphasize preferences
for strolling / walking, picnicking, fishing, volleyball and golf (Dwyer 1997; Gobster
2002; Payne et al. 2002; Sasidharan et al. 2005; Shinew et al. 2004).
15

Nativity also influences park visitation and use. For example, Baas et al.
(1993) found that Hispanics born in Mexico differed in their preferences for park
settings compared to US born Hispanics and Anglos. In this study, immigrants
preferred clean, litter-free areas, whereas the native-born Latinos emphasized the
importance of safety. Shaull and Gramann (1998) found that Hispanic-Americans
derived more family related and nature-related leisure benefits than Anglos or third-
generation Hispanic-Americans. More recent Latino immigrants also appear to have
stronger bio-centric values and concern for the environment (Floyd et al. 1993; Noe
and Snow 1989/90; Shaull and Gramann 1998).

15
Gobster (2002) noted that there are large within-group differences, which he attributes to ethnicity /
nationality.

38
Theories explaining ethno-racially differentiated park use
Leisure theorists have advanced several interconnected explanations for ethno-
racially differentiated park utilization, including: (i) marginality; (ii) race / ethnicity;
(iii) assimilation and acculturation; and (iv) discrimination. Use patterns also vary
with (v) gender (Eyler et al. 2002; Ho et al. 2005; Philipp 1997; Shaw 1994) and
(vii) and age (Orsega-Smith et al. 2004; Payne et al. 2002; Tinsley et al. 2002). Here
though I focus only on explanations for ethno-racial variations in use.
According to marginality theory, people of color face socio-economic
barriers that constrain park visitation and use (Washburn 1978). For example, people
of color may have less access to economic resources like private automobiles, thus
limiting access to parks that are near public transport routes or within easy walking
distance (Scott and Munson 1994). Lower incomes can also result in residential
segregation, relegating people of color to neighborhoods where parks may be scarce
(see for example Floyd 1999; Floyd et al. 1993; Hutchison 1987; see for example
Johnson 1998; Johnson et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2001; More and Stevens 2000; More
2002; Scott and Munson 1994; Washburn 1978; Woodard 1988). But this
explanation privileges class, factoring in race only through past oppressions (Floyd
1998), and it fails to recognize how racism still functions as a vehicle of socio-
economic domination (see Hall 1980).
Proponents of the ethnicity theory assert that distinctive ‘subcultural styles’
have developed among people of color, accounting for observed differences in
leisure preferences and activities (Washburn 1978). These subcultural differences or

39
‘divergent norm and value systems’ between Whites and people of color (Shinew et
al. 2004: 184) define an ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ identity transmitted between generations
through processes of socialization (Hutchison 1988). For example, African
Americans and Latinos are thought to feel threatened by wild nature (Floyd et al.
1995; Virden and Walker 1999) and to prefer less management and law enforcement
in parks (Gobster 2002). This theory is problematic because it confuses race and
ethnicity, conflates ethnicity with subculture, and regards ‘subcultural variations’ as
a form of self-imposed differentiation (Floyd 1998; Hutchison 1988). The theory
also essentializes and naturalizes race, and ignores within group variations in custom,
language, behavior, and norms etc.
16

Theorists favoring the acculturation / assimilation explanations argue that
people of color are enculturated to use parks differently by virtue of their ethno-
racial heritage and / or have not adjusted to / adopted the dominant values of
mainstream ‘American’ society (Baas et al. 1993; Floyd et al. 1994; Ho et al. 2005;
Hutchison 1987; Johnson et al. 1998; Payne et al. 2002; Shaull and Gramann 1998;
Tarrant and Cordell 1999; Washburn 1978; Woodard 1988). The theory holds that
over time and with increased mixing, interaction and exchange between different
cultural groups, the newer group will adopt the culture, behavior and norms (e.g.
language, food, religion, work ethic) of the dominant social group, and will gain
greater access to dominant social institutions - e.g. government, education,

16
On a positive note, some proponents of this perspective recognize that constructs like ‘Latino’ are
problematic; as Carr and Williams (1993) stated ‘there is no ‘Hispanic monolith’ using the forests’.

40
employment etc. (Floyd et al. 1993). However, the theory suffers from
ethnocentricism; as Floyd (1999) explains: ‘researchers and policy makers [assume]
that assimilation [is] inevitable and desirable.’
Some theorists suggest that discrimination is the cause of ethno-racially
differentiated park use. In the words of West (1989: 12-13): ‘interracial relations and
prejudice…and overt discrimination in public parks’ together with ‘perceptions of
hostil[ity]’ mean people of color will not use parks where they ‘feel unwelcome’ (see
also Floyd 1998; Floyd et al. 1993; Floyd and Johnson 2002; Floyd et al. 1994;
Gobster 2002; Hester Jr. et al. 1999; Lee 1972; Meeker et al. 1973; Philipp 1997;
1999; see also Stodolska and Jackson 1998; Tierney et al. 2001; Virden and Walker
1999). Theorists supporting this explanation tend to regard instances of
discrimination in isolation, rather than a part of a social system based on race (West
1989) and have ignored how histories of racism might shape contemporary park
design and use (Floyd 1999; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995).
Despite the long tradition of exploring ethno-racial differences in park use,
most studies have underestimated or simply ignored the spatial effects of racism
(Noe and Snow 1989/90; Tierney et al. 2001). Indeed, West (1989: 12) has
castigated his colleagues for failing to recognize that the racial segregation of leisure
spaces was ‘staring [them] in the face’. Hutchison (1987 : 212, 220), for instance,
reported ‘blacks in black parks, Hispanics in Hispanic parks and whites in white
parks’ but overlooked why racial segregation of parks might be occurring. Similarly,
Gobster (1989: 12) found racial segregation in Lincoln Park, Chicago, yet did not

41
explicitly connect leisure preferences and experiences of discrimination with racial
segregation. Likewise, Shinew et al., (2002) concluded that ‘parks and other public
spaces tend to be color coded…reflecting[ing] a racialized social order’ but
attributed this solely to sociological factors (Shinew et al. 2004: 196). The role of
segregated residential location has also been minimized, despite findings that people
of color travel further than Whites to visit particular parks (Gobster 2002; Payne et
al. 2002).
Overall, studies of ethno-racial differences in park use tend to exhibit a ‘user-
based’ perspective, focused on park visitor characteristics and individual constraints
to leisure as determinants of park utilization. But how might differential access to
urban parks reflect socio-spatial processes? For example, does living in
neighborhoods characterized by a lack of greenspace configure available recreational
opportunities, and thus leisure preferences and activities, as suggested by (Schroeder
1983)?
Past research has also treated park spaces as largely homogeneous, providing
few insights into why for example, some people might be attracted to some parks and
not others, or why park users might perceive certain park spaces as the territory of
particular ethno-racial group(s), thus shaping park utilization choices (e.g. Gobster
2002; Gray 1973; Johnson et al. 1998; Kornblum 1983; Lee 1972; National Park
Service 1975; Shinew et al. 2004; West 1989). Although some researchers have
begun to engage with space (e.g. Kornblum 1983; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995), focusing
upon notions of ‘territoriality’ or ‘place attachment’, these concepts remain

42
peripheral and poorly theorized (e.g. Brooks et al. 2006; Moore and Scott 2004;
Payne et al. 2002; Stokowski 2002; Williams 2002). The challenge is how to
reconceptualize ethno-racially differentiated park use to include the influences of
space and place.
Reconceptualizing park use and accessibility
Conceptual frames from leisure research lack historical specificity, focus on park
users, have limited conceptualizations of race, and only superficially consider space
and place (see Gomez 2002). But leisure researchers are not the only theorists to
have overlooked the spatiality of parks - the conceptual models of public health
researchers are also problematic. Although these models acknowledge space, they
privilege physical features (e.g. presence of drinking fountains or graffiti in public
toilets) at the expense of users’ perceptions of park spaces (see Bedimo-Rung et al.
2005). Public health theorists also neglect the historicity of park development, and
give only marginal consideration to the role that multiple axes of difference might
play in shaping park access and use. What we need is a conceptual model that
incorporates the insights of these scholars with those of geographers - essentially a
spatially explicit understanding of park use. Such a model must consider park
characteristics (e.g. size, facilities, vegetation types etc.) and socio-spatial processes
(e.g. the uneven supply and distribution parkland, residential segregation, travel
distances) as well as socio-demographic variables.

43
Niepoth (1973) outlined a conceptual model of park use that provides a good
starting point. He suggested that physical fitness, age, income, time, knowledge /
awareness, skills, climate, the social environment and feelings of belonging or
exclusion are important correlates of park use. Ideas of belonging and exclusion were
also important to other scholars at the time who recognized that if people are going
to use parks - especially the socially disadvantaged - parks must be seen as safe,
welcoming, well-maintained, physically appealing, catering for a range of activities,
and fostering social interaction (e.g. French 1973; Gray 1973; McDonald and
Newcomer 1973). For example, geographers Teresa Westover (Westover 1985) and
Claire Madge (1985) emphasized the importance of perception in mediating potential
park users’ attitudes towards park safety, feelings of belonging and notions of
incivility.
Following these cues, a spatially-explicit conceptual model of park utilization
should consider four elements: (i) the socio-demographic characteristics of park
users and nonusers - as suggested by leisure research (ii) the geographic context and
amenities of the park - e.g. physical characteristics, the features of surrounding
neighborhoods and land uses etc. (iii) the historical and cultural context of park
provision - such as discriminatory land use practices and philosophy of park design,
and. (iv) individual perceptions of park spaces - e.g. accessibility, safety,
conviviality, or sense of welcome, all of which are mediated by their personal
characteristics, and park context, park features and history (see figure 1).

44

Figure 1 – Conceptual model

Park use is closely associated with the pool of potential park users. Many
socio-demographic variables influence park utilization, including age, sex, race,
ethnicity, education, income levels, disability, physical fitness, home ownership, and
household composition. Other user-centered variables also potentially influence park
use including residential location, physical mobility (e.g. car-ownership), time
resources (e.g. working poor), attitudes towards nature, and leisure preferences.
Many of these variables may also affect how potential users perceive park spaces and
the people who use those spaces (e.g. whether or not a park accommodates disability,
whether it is safe, and whether it is welcoming or threatening). Because perception is

45
molded by individual differences, the same park may be perceived very differently
by people from diverse socio-cultural and socio-demographic backgrounds.
Geographers’ recognition that place perception is collectively and
discursively mediated is important to understanding how ethno-racial differences
may shape perceptions of park spaces (see Gollege and Stimson 1997). For example,
David Sibley has astutely observed that stereotypes of place act to signify belonging
or exclusion, noting that that African-American children may be fearful of venturing
into White urban landscapes because they believe they will be subject to harassment
(Sibley 1999). Similarly, people of color may perceive some urban parks as ‘Whites-
only’ parks, or feel apprehensive about traveling to some park destinations because
they have to first traverse space that is mostly White, and thus potentially hostile
(e.g. Gould and White 1986; Lee 1972; Meeker et al. 1973; West 1993). Others
substantiate these claims, showing a correlation between the perception of danger or
discomfort and lower levels of utilization of urban public spaces like parks (Hester
Jr. et al. 1999; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002;
Ravenscroft and Markwell 2000; Rishbeth 2001). The perception that it is too
expensive to visit a particular park may also influence use, regardless of actual
entrance fees or other costs.
The park space component of my conceptual framework emphasizes the
importance of variables such as lighting, vegetation, topography, drainage, fencing,
signage and maintenance and the character of nearby neighborhoods - together with
ambient characteristics like temperature and precipitation - as potential determinants

46
of park utilization (Bonaiuto et al. 1999; Burger 2003; Burgess et al. 1988; Fletcher
1983; Floyd et al. 1994; Flynn et al. 1994; Gobster 1998; Gobster 2002; Loukaitou-
Sideris 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002; Perez-Verdin et al. 2004; Philipp
1999; Ruddick 1996; Steg and Sievers 2000; Whitzman 2002). As with socio-
demographic variables, park visitors may perceive different park characteristics (e.g.
the type of vegetation and density of planting) as being friendly, unwelcoming or
even potentially hostile and unsafe.
Park fixtures may mirror cultural and ethno-racial ideologies about the
appropriate appearance and use of space; most American parks have been designed
according to Anglo-Celtic landscape aesthetics - i.e. language of park signage, the
layout of the park space, landscaping (Baas et al. 1993; Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005;
Gold 1986; Rishbeth 2001). Researchers have suggested that Chinese born park
goers for example, do not feel that American park landscapes are attractive
(Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002). Heidi Nast (2006)
similarly contends that the presence of dogs in parks may preclude park use by
people of color. The presence of park security, law enforcement personnel or rangers
may also influence perceptions of safety or belonging - both positively and
negatively (see also Rishbeth 2001). Park rules may codify Anglo-normativity. Some
like ‘keep off the grass’ have been inherited from the park reformers of the 19th
century; others such as ‘soccer prohibited’ might reflect both a shortage of park
space and racially-based attitudes about what constitutes appropriate use of park
space (Martin 2004).

47
My conceptual framework recognizes the historical and cultural context of
park provision, in particular the history of racial prejudice in the US which has been
a key factor in park-making projects in many American cities. This history is
reflected in inequitable patterns of park provision (Gobster 1998; Gobster 2002;
Virden and Walker 1999). Parks located in White neighborhoods for example, may
be harder for people of color to access, and may be perceived as less welcoming.
Larger parks are oftentimes found in predominantly White neighborhoods, reflecting
patterns of racialized suburbanization (Hurley 1995), and recent research has found
that people of color seldom venture into larger regional parks for fear of racial
harassment (Ravenscroft and Markwell 2000; Rishbeth 2001).
Landscapes like parks can denote belonging and meaning by acting as
systems of social reproduction (Cosgrove 1995; Hayden 1995; Matless 1997;
Matless 1998; Mitchell 1996; 2002; 2003; 2006; Olwig 2005; Schein 1997; Staeheli
et al. 2002; and Walton and Bridgewater 1996). The ideology of park provision may
significantly affect both the character of park landscapes and how potential users
perceive those landscapes. Cultural geographers have documented how racial
ideologies are mobilized and instantiated within urban landscapes through symbolic
and material coordinates (e.g. Anderson 1987; 2002; Anderson 2003; Bender 2001;
Cosgrove 1995; Endfield and Nash 2002; Eves 2005; Kenny 1995; Kobayashi and
Peake 2000; Mahtani 2001; Nash 1996; Peake and Ray 2001), since processes of
racialization reflect the mutually constitutive character of racial identity and place
(Mitchell 2002; 2003; 2006; Schein 1997; Schein 2002; 2006). For example, Oliver

48
and Shapiro, cited in Pulido (2000) have argued that ‘[s]ince landscapes are artefacts
of past and present racisms, they embody generations of sociospatial relations’ which
become ‘sedimented’ in place (Pulido 2000: 16; 2006). This idea was first articulated
by Ford (1995: 450) when he explained that: ‘physical space primarily associated
with and occupied by …particular racial group[s] predictably reproduce[s] and
entrench[es] racial segregation’ (also see Peake and Ray 2001).
Some feminist geographers have also recently shown how greenspaces might
become racialized, documenting for example how ‘black’ bodies are depicted as
being out of place in natural areas (Katz and Kirby 1991; Nash 1996; Rose et al.
1997). These geographers have reported that women of color are especially
vulnerable to being attacked in parks (Brownlow 2005; Brownlow 2006; Madge
1997; Valentine 1991; Whitzman 2002), and have illustrated how in natural settings
the black male body is branded as inherently dangerous (see also Burgess et al. 1988;
see also Hester Jr. et al. 1999; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and
Stieglitz 2002; Madge 1997; Nicholls 2001; Ravenscroft and Markwell 2000;
Rishbeth 2001; Smoyer-Tomic et al. 2004).
The racial politics of park development reflect ideologies of land use,
histories of property development, philosophies of planning, and the spatialization of
discrimination. David Delaney has noted that racialization may be effected through
the legal and symbolic inscription of space. Material and legal apparatus, such as
land titles, restrictive covenants, zoning and redlining, and representational registers
such as post cards, advertising, color schemes, street trees, murals and architectural

49
embellishments, may configure landscapes as spaces of denial and exclusion
(Delaney 1998; 2001; 2002; see also Duncan and Duncan 2003; Gotham 2000;
Lands 2004; Nickel 1997; Power 1983; Ross and Leigh 2000; Schein 1997).
17

Signage for example, can play a major role in denoting belonging or
exclusion. Research on Boston’s Franklin Park by Hayward (1989) found that park
signage was a critical determinant in utilization choices. Potential park users reported
that because they lacked information about park facilities etc. they did not use certain
parts of the park. Similarly Scott and Munson (1994: 87) found that information
about parks and park facilities is a likely determinant of park use in the Greater
Cleveland area. Some signs prohibiting certain activities like the playing of soccer in
parks may reveal racialized understandings of who belongs in parks.
Patterns of park supply illuminate ideologies of park provision, but they also
directly affect the ability of people to access and use parks. The inequitable
allocation of parks and differential accessibility to parks within cities is an
environmental justice concern (e.g. Cutter 1981; 1995; Cutter et al. 2000; e.g. Pulido
2000; Pulido et al. 1996). A recent study by Jennifer Wolch and colleagues (Wolch
et al. 2005) found that in Los Angeles low-income neighborhoods and those
dominated by people of color have dramatically lower levels of access to park
resources than predominantly White areas of the city, with park space falling as low

17
For example, Duncan and Duncan (2003) have examined landscape production in suburban New
York showing that although Latinos bodies are needed to maintain the aestheticized nature of the
suburban pastoral, Latinos are excluded from the rights, privileges and benefits enjoyed by White
residents. These include affordable housing, the right to congregate on the street and access to
shopping and places of worship.

50
as 0.31 acres (or the equivalent of a suburban backyard) per 1,000 residents in inner
city communities of color.
Finally, political ecology research suggests that, multiple axes of difference
can configure such disparities, with gender, class and race being imbricated in
marginality and vulnerability - i.e. delimiting access to environmental goods and
services (see Brownlow 2005; see Heynen 2003; 2006; Heynen and Perkins 2005;
Huang et al. 2002; Pezzoli 2002; Swyngedouw 1996). I explore this idea in greater
detail in chapter 2.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have used a genealogical approach to chart the historical
development of parks in the United States, focusing on how parks may act as
ideological vehicles, and specifically how ideologies of race and ethnicity have
configured various types of parks in a variety of places and at various scales. I have
also proposed a conceptual framework for geographic research into the ways that
parks might function as racialized landscapes. My conceptual framework explains
how several factors might be responsible for ethno-racially differentiated patterns of
park utilization. Socio-demographic variables, the characteristics of park spaces, how
these spaces are perceived by potential users, and the ideologies under girding park
provision, management, design and maintenance may all configure park utilization
choices in very specific ways. In the chapters that follow I mobilize this conceptual
frame to discuss why and how two parks in Los Angeles – the Kenneth Hahn State

51
Recreation Area (a park used predominantly by people of color) and the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (a mostly White park) function as
racialized landscapes.

52
Chapter 2 The racialized history of L.A. park-making:
The Baldwin Hills

Introduction
Without the park’s small entrance signs, it would be easy to miss the Kenneth Hahn
State Recreation Area. Upon first inspection it is an unremarkable site, bearing few
of the hallmarks of an urban park. Surrounded by an operating oilfield, the park
adjoins a major thoroughfare – more of a speedway than a street. There are no grand
boulevards, nor are there any impressive civic buildings typical of urban parks of this
size. On a clear day though, the park offers tantalizing, multi-million dollar views of
the Pacific Ocean and downtown Los Angeles. It also contains the last extant patch
of coastal sage-scrub in the Los Angeles basin. Residents who live nearby are
predominantly people of color and they cherish the park because it is one of the few
greenspaces within this city’s park-deprived urban core. Moreover, their battle for
this park was hard-won.
In this chapter I explore some of the environmental and socio-political
transformations that led to the development of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation
Area. I specifically examine park-making ideologies that were prevalent in Los
Angeles’ past, and the racial formations targeted by proponents of these ideologies.
Located in Los Angeles’ Baldwin Hills, the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area
materialized in part due to the political savvy of County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn.

53
A White politician, Hahn used a climate of social unrest to justify the park’s creation
and to simultaneously bolster his appeal to his predominantly African-American
constituents.
18
I historicize and unravel the story behind this park, drawing upon
mixed methods research that took place from January to May, 2002. Using a
combination of archival research, in-depth interviews, and geographic information
systems (GIS) analysis I excavate the socio-political underpinnings of the park to
unravel the entangled economic, political, historical, cultural and environmental
factors that culminated in its development.
I conducted in-depth interviews with State agency and local parks department
representatives, representatives from non-profit groups, community leaders and oil
industry representatives. Archival research consisted of an examination of
environmental impact reports for the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, political
maps drawn from the University of California, Los Angeles map library archives,
records from the Los Angeles public library archives (especially the California Blue
Books and State Rosters), the County of Los Angeles property title database, the
University of Southern California’s special collection for zoning schemes, Sanborne
Fire Insurance records, City of Los Angeles archival material on the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and the Huntington Library’s collection of manuscripts
from County Supervisors Kenneth Hahn and John Anson Ford.

18
James Hahn used his father’s reputation with the African-American community of Los Angeles to
win a Mayor election against Antonio Villaraigosa. He subsequently lost the support of this vital
component of the electorate after firing police chief Bernard Parks who later ran against Hahn. James
Hahn then lost a mayoral election to Villaraigosa.

54
Applying the theoretical lens of urban political ecology, I seek to answer
three specific questions: (1) who were the key actors that shaped the development of
the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation area?; (2) how did their interactions impact the
local environment over time?; and (3) has park development in the Baldwin Hills
from the 1920s to the present alleviated or exacerbated the vulnerability of local
residents to environmental change? I begin by situating recent expansions of the
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area within Los Angeles unprecedented park
revivification.
Los Angeles’ park renaissance
A recent round of park expansion testifies to the fact that the Kenneth Hahn State
Recreation Area is vitally important to Los Angeles’ local environment (Mozingo
2000). On December 29, 2000, a parcel of 68 acres of land (Vista Pacifica) was
added to the park at a cost of $41.1 million dollars. Literally snatched from beneath
the bulldozers that had begun leveling the site for a 241 unit residential development,
at the time it was the most expensive park acquisition in the history of the State of
California (Wave Community Newspaper 2000; Los Angeles Times 2000). The park
expansion represented a victory for the largely African-American and Latino
community on its border, and was made possible through a concerted and
coordinated effort on the part of a coalition of community activists, non-profit
organizations, local politicians and key public agencies.

55
Funding sources for the park included $32.5 million from Proposition 12
(championed by then Mayoral candidate and now Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa)
known as the ‘Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2000’; $5 million from the Los Angeles County Proposition
A entitled: ‘Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and
Youth Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection’ initiated by County Supervisor
Yvonne Braithwaite Burke and legislative appropriations initiated by Democratic
Senator Kevin Murray and Assemblyman Herb Wesson; and the then Governor Gray
Davis’ support of $3.5 million from the State’s general fund (Wave Community
Newspaper 2000; Pincetl 2003; Wolch et al. 2005).
19
It was a landmark event, given
the history of political apathy towards park development in Los Angeles (Davis
1996; Hise and Deverell 2000), and significantly, one that involved local politicians
who were all people of color.
The alliance of politicians of color, environmental non-profits, local park
activists and local government marked a radical departure from the usual complicity
between politics and land development in the metropolis (Davis 1998; Pincetl 1999;
Press 2002). Indeed, Stephanie Pincetl (2003) has characterized this nascent parks
movement as a new form of urban regime, a view supported by historian Kevin Starr
(2004). Moreover, the movement appears to be aligned with a broader environmental

19
The American Land Conservancy administered the purchase, and transferred the land to the State of
California’s Parks Department and the Baldwin Hills Recreation and Conservation Authority. Another
non-profit, Community Conservancy international, was instrumental in orchestrating the purchase by
lobbying for and securing funding. There were other agencies that played a role too, including the
Packard Foundation and Environment Now.

56
justice platform and has considerable political clout. For example, State Senators
Hilda Solis and Martha Escutia, instrumental to some of the above-mentioned park
developments, also championed legislation to revise California’s air pollution
standards to take into account children’s health and to require the State’s
Environmental Protection Agency to consider the environmental justice effects of its
policies and decisions.
Los Angeles is in the midst of a park renaissance. Following decades of
unfettered real estate development that irreparably destroyed unique ecosystems and
confined people of color and the urban poor to bleak industrialized wastelands
(Davis 1996; Press 2002), a coalition of community groups, non-profit
environmental organizations and local politicians has been patiently stitching
together a plan to rejuvenate the inner city. Their actions have recently seen the
passage of the State of California Urban Park Act (California 2001), dedicated to
financing the ‘acquisition and development of parks, recreation areas and facilities in
neighborhoods currently least served by park and recreation providers’. Over the past
four years alone, more than $87 million dollars has been spent purchasing and
transforming former brownfield sites into new city parks and greenspaces.
The new park funding has included $45 million for the Taylor Yards - a 40
acre park on a former rail yard in downtown Los Angeles, $33.5 million for the
Chinatown Cornfields park – a 32 acre brownfield site abutting Los Angeles’
Chinatown, and $4.5 million for the 8.5 acre Augustus Hawkins nature park, a
former brownfield in South Los Angeles. In 2004, a further $130 million dollars was

57
set aside under the Act for park acquisition and development. What is most telling
about this change of attitude towards parks in the urban core is revealed by the
ideology enshrined in the Urban Park Act (California 2001) and the titles of the park
bond propositions. Targeted not only at park deprived areas, but also at ‘destructive
or unlawful conduct by youth…and other urban population groups’, this raft of
legislative initiatives may represent a resurgence of an older idea of nature; as much
about the maintenance of law and order and the policing of transgressive behavior as
it is about greenspace provision (op. cit.).
Perhaps it is no accident that park provision in Los Angeles has been linked
to racial unrest following, and attributable to, urban uprisings such as the Watts Riots
in 1965 and Rodney King uprisings in 1992 (Ouroussoff 2001). Many politicians and
social commentators have suggested that absence of parks leads to social unrest.
Some have gone so far as to suggest that park provision can directly assuage class
and race-based antipathies. For instance recreation researchers Foley and Ward
(Foley and Ward 1993: 68) sermonized that the: ‘young of South Los Angeles are
black, brown, strong and combustible, and guns need to be replaced with balls, seeds
and paint brushes’. This narrative harks back to the inception of the first urban parks
in the United States, where ‘Nature’ was put to the service of fighting immorality
and instilling civility; a trope that has since directed the urban park movement
(Boyer 1978; Cranz 1982; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz
2002; Schenker 1996; Taylor 1999; Young 1996). To better understand why and how

58
parks have become linked to fighting incivility I turn to the nascent field of urban
political ecology.
A political ecology of an urban park
Alec Brownlow’s (2005; 2006) political ecology study of Fairmont Park in
Philadelphia offers us some important insights into Los Angeles’ Kenneth Hahn
State Recreation Area. For instance, Brownlow has demonstrated that complex
interconnections occur between gender, race and politics that shape the use of park
spaces. In his study, Brownlow shows us how socio-natural changes to the park,
concomitant with declining park funding, have resulted in increasing gendered and
racialized violence within the park and its environs. Lower levels of maintenance in
linear park stretches adjoining communities of color - especially the management of
prolific weed species which crowd out sightlines and overgrow paths and trails -
have been accompanied by greater increases in violent crimes in neighborhoods of
color when compared to areas abutting White neighborhoods.
Brownlow clarifies how racialized park management, patterns of social
exclusion and environmental injustice, ecosystem dynamics and the different ways
that women of color and White women access and use Fairmont Park. He shows that
how a woman of color uses Fairmont Park has as much to do with the characteristics
of the park space as with that individual’s leisure preferences. Brownlow’s work
takes us a step closer towards reconceptualizing parks by recognizing that there is a
complex interplay between park spaces, the perception of those spaces by potential

59
users, the historical context of park provision and management, and people’s park
utilization choices. As I will show in this chapter, the development of the Kenneth
Hahn State Recreation Area has some striking similarities with Fairmont Park, but
the particularities of this park and the ways that African-Americans are racialized in
Los Angeles illuminate other interactions that are not present in Philadelphia.
The park’s regional context
Nestled on the shoulder of a prominence known as the Baldwin Hills, some six miles
from downtown Los Angeles and four miles from the Pacific Ocean (see figure 2),
the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area at first glance appears to be a relatively
mundane feature of Los Angeles’ inner-city landscape. Crowned by power
transmission lines, microwave radio towers and oil pumps, encircled by ranch-style
housing, and covered in drab brown and olive scrub, the park is hardly a portrait of
‘pristine’ nature.
Recently, the Baldwin Hills have been slated to become the largest urban
park to be developed in modern US history – much larger than New York’s Central
Park (Feldman et al. 2001; Mozingo 2000). Moreover, this park is to be a nature
park, with the degraded landscape set to undergo substantial ecological restoration.
For this reason alone, the hills would seem to be a good place to examine the
political ecology of park development in Los Angeles and how parks are produced as
socio-natures.
20
The park’s history as a site of ongoing environmental justice

20
Portions of the hills have steep bluffs whilst other areas are gently undulating. Areas characterized
by more gentle slopes have already been developed for housing, whilst large areas of the hills have

60
contestation, exemplifying the politics of park disentitlement so pervasive in the
urban core of Los Angeles, is what makes the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation area a
compelling case study.

Figure 2 – Location of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area
(Source: Dreamline Cartography, 2006)

The rapid expansion of Los Angeles from the 1920s to the 1960s left many
neighborhoods in the city’s older urban core park-deprived. The Baldwin Hills
communities were no exception. The neighborhoods around the Baldwin Hills have
some of the worst park accessibility problems in the Nation (Wolch et al. 2005).

also been physically modified by activities associated with oil extraction. The actual extent of the
landform is bounded by the Ballona Creek to the north-west, the Santa Monica Freeway to the north,
Crenshaw Boulevard to the east, a portion of the San Diego Freeway, Florence Avenue, and the Santa
Fe rail line to the south, and Culver City’s municipal boundary to the west.

61
More than one million people live within a five-mile radius of the Baldwin Hills. Yet
they have only limited access to park-space: about 0.31 acres of park space per 1,000
residents (the equivalent of a suburban backyard). This compares to an average of 31
acres per 1,000 residents for suburban Los Angeles (Feldman et al. 2001; Mozingo
2000; Wolch et al. 2005).
Incredibly, sited atop an oilfield some 511 feet above sea-level, and
commanding panoramic views of the city skyline, Hollywood and the Pacific Ocean,
the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area survived Los Angeles’ rapacious appetite
for land. At the time oil was discovered in the Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles was in the
midst of a real estate boom that would profoundly reconfigure the metropolis,
instantiating urban sprawl as the standard built form (Young 2001). Ironically, the
park owes its very existence to oil production, with the concomitant odor, noise and
poor visual amenity of the active oilfield preserving the site as an island in the midst
of a sea of development (McKinney, 2001). But this does not completely explain
how the park came into existence. As anyone familiar with Los Angeles will attest,
oilfields and expensive houses happily coexist across the city – even in parts of
Beverly Hills. For a better explanation we need to excavate the locality’s social and
political past.
The park’s historical context - opportunities lost…
In 1930, following their dire prediction that Los Angeles treasured landscapes would
be overrun by development, Frederick Olmsted Jr. and Harland Bartholomew were
commissioned by a Citizens’ Committee appointed by the Los Angeles Chamber of

62
Commerce to plan a comprehensive system of integrated parks, nature reserves,
beaches, and neighborhood-based playgrounds for the region (Hise and Deverell
2000; Young 2001). One of the recommendations of the report was to preserve
unique topographic features surrounding the city, including the Baldwin Hills, within
regional open space (Hise and Deverell 2000: 117 & 300).
If Olmsted and Bartholomew’s recommendations had held sway, only the
occasional oil derrick would have occluded city-views for skyline motorists and
panorama seekers traveling through the Baldwin Hills.
21
However, the Citizens’
Committee imploded in dissent. This was due to: the projected cost of implementing
the plan; the proposal for a centralized park agency which threatened the ideology of
‘local rule’; the scientific language of the document which alienated some readers
and; opposition to perceived ‘land grabs’ (Hise and Deverell 2000; Young 2001).
Clearly the plan’s authors recognized that the Baldwin Hills had greater value
undeveloped, and believed that the City, acting in an entrepreneurial capacity would
recognize this as its midwestern and east coast counterparts had done earlier. But the
Olmstead-Bartholowmew plan failed to consider the strength of the prevailing land
development ethos in Los Angeles. With the onset of the Great Depression the
Olmsted-Bartholomew scheme was permanently shelved. Very few of their
proposals have since been realized (Hise and Deverell 2000; Pincetl 2003; Young

21
Shaffer (2001, p. 357) has provocatively argued that the Olmstead-Bartholomew Plan was not the
product of beneficent visionaries, but was instead a shrewdly modernist planning instrument: ‘cloaked
in images and ideas associated with nature’ yet also advancing ‘a cultural agenda…[of]…progress,
technology and commercial development’. Shaffer has argued that for the proponents of the plan,
‘scenic parkways provided a landscape resource that increased real estate values’ (Shaffer, 2001, p.
375).

63
2001). Ironically, and perhaps through sheer good fortune, the Kenneth Hahn State
Recreation has emerged as one of them.
An important obstacle to the Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan was the notion that
Los Angeles had little need for parks. With abundant open space on its periphery in
the form of mountains, the Pacific Ocean beaches and vast acreages of orchards and
vineyards, few early planners and developers in Los Angeles recognized a need for
parks (McClung 2000: 152-153). Moreover, the dominance of the single family
house, each with its own verdant backyard, gave Angelenos themselves little reason
to venture far from home for contact with nature. In the words of McClung
(McClung 2000: 149): parks were perceived as ‘a compensation for the failures of
the paved environment’ and since Los Angeles was in a sense a city ‘built in park’, it
had no need for them. Added to this was a deep suspicion of city parks as ‘refuges
for the marginal and the lairs of predators’ (McClung 2000: 144).
With the failure of the Olmstead-Bartholomew Plan, and a widespread
antipathy towards parks among Angelenos, there was nothing preventing the
Baldwin Hills from being overrun by development. To understand why the hills
survived relatively intact, we need to probe the social, political and economic factors
that mitigated development.
‘Black gold’
The Baldwin Hills - historian Norman Klein has noted - derived their name from
Elias Jackson ‘Lucky’ Baldwin (1828-1908), a prominent businessman and land
speculator in late nineteenth-century Southern California (Klein and Schiesl 1990:

64
3). Baldwin arrived in Los Angeles during the property boom of the 1880s, having
made his riches in the Nevada Comstock Mines. Baldwin amassed his wealth into a
local real estate fortune, becoming one of Los Angeles’ early property development
millionaires (Mozingo 2000). He purchased the 4,481.5 acre Rancho Cienega O’Paso
de la Tijera - comprising the majority of the Baldwin Hills, from the then Alcalde
(mayor) of Los Angeles, Vicente Sanchez (Rasmussen 1994; Rasmussen 1996). In
the ensuing half century, Baldwin’s eponymous hills escaped large-scale
development largely because he believed them to be worthless wasteland fit only for
cattle grazing (French 1970). It was not until some fifteen years after Baldwin’s
death that his family learned the true value their inheritance (see figure 3).

Figure 3 – Baldwin Hills rancho (ca. 1880s)
(Reproduced with permission of the Los Angeles Public Library)

65

Beneath the Baldwin Hills lay the reserves of what was to become known as
the Inglewood Oil Field (Higgins 1958). First discovered in downtown Los Angeles
by Edward Doheney in 1892, oil extraction rapidly became one of the pillars of the
Southern Californian economy (Hodgson 1985; Hodgson 1988; Yergin 1991).
Several large deposits were found in the early twentieth century at Long Beach,
Huntington Beach and Santa Fe Springs (Quan-Wickham 1998). Under exploration
since 1916, the Baldwin Hills oilfield was first exploited in 1924 when Standard Oil
Company of California hit pay dirt with discovery well No.1.

Figure 4 – The Baldwin Hills Oilfield (ca. 1940s)
(Reproduced with permission of the Los Angeles Public Library)

66
By August 1925, production had peaked with 147 wells yielding 3,248,109
barrels per acre. Around this time, Southern California became one of the world’s
largest oil producers and Los Angeles became a city filled with ‘blue-eyed sheiks’
(Davis 1990: 117).
In the roaring 1920s, the prehistoric remains of plants and animals trapped
beneath the folded and faulted Pleistocene sediments of an ancient ocean were
tapped by a ‘forest of derricks’ (figure 4) to fuel the appetites of the burgeoning
automobile dependent metropolis (Bottles 1987; Moldauer 1991; Quan-Wickham
1998). According to Quam-Wickham (1998: 189): ‘…oil development radically
changed existing land use patterns, encouraged industrialization, and contributed to
real estate speculation in the region.’ Weekly updates of oil strikes, stock values and
oil production levels became a fixture of the Los Angeles Times and other
newspapers, igniting a national oil frenzy and spurring migration to the city.
Although the oil industry became critically important to the future of Los Angeles, it
had mixed blessing for neighbors of the city’s oilfields.
Oil development left a legacy of environmental destruction. Hillsides were
terraced, vegetation was stripped from the landscape, pools of oil and chemicals
seeped into topsoil, and oil fires regularly filled the sky with plumes of acrid black
smoke. Bungalows, vegetation, city streets, streams and wetlands were smeared with
oil when wells frequently blew out after drilling crews hit pockets of natural gas,
‘ruining orchards, vegetable fields and grazing lands (Quan-Wickham 1998: 192-
193). Oil from drilling operations, land and sea-based transportation and leaking tank

67
farms left the Los Angeles harbor covered in a thick film of oil, which migrated up
the coast despoiling the city’s iconic beaches. Even the city’s sewers ran with oil
from illegal dumping. The situation got so bad that the City’s Parks and Playgrounds
Commission published photographs of pollution at Venice Beach in its 1928 annual
report, listing oil production as an impediment to healthy recreation.
22

Real estate development
As boomtown Los Angeles experienced a twofold increase in population, the mass
availability of the automobile liberated real estate developers from the limitations
imposed by a dependency on streetcar and railway lines. While the growth of the
nearby municipalities of Inglewood and Culver City were highly contingent on the
metropolitan railway network, the proliferation of communities around the Baldwin
Hills was automobile created. Residential development in the Baldwin Hills began
during the 1920s, as the first homes in the district were built directly below Jefferson
Boulevard and west of Crenshaw Boulevard (see figure 1). Construction peaked in
1924, and the choice of the area for the 1932 Olympic Village shows that it had
already become fashionable.
23

Although growth slowed following the Great Depression, the 1940s proved to
be a significant decade for the built environment of the district. A boom in residential
development followed the return of servicemen in the late 1940s and the tide of post-
war migrants flocking to Southern California. This population influx placed

22
Eventually the local community backlash against these problems spawned a working class
conservationism that redefined industry operating practices (Quam-Wickham, 1998).
23
The village was demolished shortly after the games had finished.

68
enormous pressure on the city, manifested in accommodation shortages and
escalating land values (Goudey 1936). During this time, housing engulfed the
Baldwin Hills oilfield.
In the 1950s, single family-homes became the basic component of
development in the Baldwin Hills and fetched lucrative prices as the district retained
its early fashionable character. The exception was a utopian, pedestrian-oriented
apartment complex called the Village Green, constructed with the assistance of the
Federal Housing Authority in 1942, under the direction of architect Clarence Stein
and partners (figure 5).

Figure 5 – The Baldwin Hills Village Green (ca. 1940s)
(Reproduced with permission of the Los Angeles Public Library)

69

The final wave of residential development in the area during the 1950s
witnessed the extensive construction of homes atop the hills (figure 6). In 1953, three
major grading operations on the sides of the hills made way for the construction of
impressive new homes on the curvilinear ‘Don’ streets in the highest parts of the
Baldwin Hills (all of the streets in this area were given Spanish names beginning
with ‘Don’ e.g. Don Felipe, Don Miguel, Don Tomaso, etc).
24
The population at that
time was predominantly White, with a small Japanese minority.

Figure 6 – Residents of the Baldwin Hills (ca. 1940)
(Reproduced with permission of the Los Angeles Public Library)

24
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, Building Permits, 1953, permit #s 51167,
55940, 75936.

70
Beginning in the early 1960s though, the area underwent a dramatic
demographic transition. Lonnie Bunch, a scholar of African-American issues, has
noted that following the end of residential segregation, after the US Supreme Court
struck down restrictive housing covenants in 1948, the Baldwin Hills were one of
Los Angeles’ few integrated communities. But harmonious relations did not last
(Bunch 1990). Larger numbers of middle class African-Americans buying homes in
the area, including Tom Bradley who went on to become Los Angeles’ first black
mayor, soon prompted a wave of white flight. The Baldwin Hills, says Bunch,
became a ‘golden ghetto’ of doctors, lawyers and entrepreneurs who had been
‘…fortunate enough to escape the culture of poverty that gripped South Central Los
Angeles’ (Bunch 1990: 124).
From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, the area became more racially
diverse, as the White majority was replaced by African American, Japanese
American and some Latino residents. The residential area dubbed ‘The Dons’ had
become a stronghold of middle to upper class African Americans, and by 1980 it was
obvious that the Baldwin Hills were the new center of African American culture in
Los Angeles.
The neighborhoods now identified with the Baldwin Hills are comprised of
some 30 communities, including View Park, Windsor Hills, Fox Hills, Leimert Park,
Blair Hills, Ladera Heights, North Inglewood, Crenshaw and Baldwin Vista.
Although there are pockets of great affluence amidst these communities, some of the
neighborhoods on the flat lands surrounding the hills are among the city’s poorest. A

71
substantial portion of the population in these neighborhoods lives within multi-story
apartments, and has a mean household income of less than $15,000 per annum, well
below the Los Angeles County average. Almost 20% of residents within these
neighborhoods also fall below the national poverty level.
Census 2000 figures reveal that the Baldwin Hills area is now quite socio-
demographically diverse. Of the approximately 45,000 residents who live in the
neighborhoods immediately surrounding the hills, the population is 76% African-
American, 9% Latino and close to 6% White. Within a five mile radius of the hills
the population composition shifts considerably: 29% African-American, 33% Latino
and 38% White (Feldman et al. 2001).
Oil and water don’t mix – nature reviled, nature revived
The burgeoning population of Los Angeles fuelled by economic booms based on oil
and land development resulted in water pressure regulation and supply problems for
the west-side neighborhoods by the mid-1940s (Lund 1954). Requiring a twofold
increase in storage and distribution capacity to contain peak summer demand, the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) turned to the undeveloped
portions of the city to solve this dilemma. An elevated site was needed for a water
supply reservoir and the Baldwin Hills seemingly fit the bill. At some 500 feet above
sea level, the north ridge of the Baldwin Hills, highest point of south-western Los
Angeles, was an obvious choice for the new reservoir.
In the mid-1940s, most of the land immediately adjacent to the proposed site
remained largely undeveloped, and the presence of the oilfield made land acquisition

72
relatively inexpensive. In 1947, the LADWP purchased the site for the new reservoir
from the Baldwin Hills Development Company. This was the beginning of public
ownership of land in the locality, and sowed the seeds for what was later to become
the Baldwin Hills open space and Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area.
On February 6, 1947, with a series of engineering and geological
investigations completed, the City Planning Commission fatefully approved the
reservoir plans. In what was to later become a tragic decision, the reservoir was
constructed roughly 3,500 feet northeast of the middle of the 1,180-acre Inglewood
Oil Field, operated by Standard Oil. The oilfield was created by the actions of the
Newport-Inglewood fault, running from just north of the Baldwin Hills, past Signal
Hill in Long Beach to south of Newport Beach, then offshore from the San Joaquin
Hills. The Baldwin Hills are the surface expression of a fractured anticline, thrust
upward through millennia of seismic actions (Cooke 1984; Gumprecht 1999;
Hamilton and Meehan 1971).
Although both seismic activity and petroleum extraction were known to be
potential agents of ground subsidence at the time the reservoir was proposed,
engineers were confident of their plans. The reservoir was placed into service in
1951 ‘as a model of engineering excellence and source of pride to its builder and
owner, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’ (State of California 1964).
With completion of the reservoir, hillside subdivisions of single - family houses
overtook portions of the hills not used for oil production (Wan 1993). The last of

73
these subdivisions, the one closest to the Baldwin Hills Reservoir, was completed in
October 1956.
Following declining returns from normal oil extraction practices, in 1954
Standard Oil introduced a new oil recovery technique called ‘high-pressure water-
flooding’ in a limited numbers of wells within the Inglewood Oilfield.
25
The
principle behind this secondary recovery technique was simple: inject salt water deep
into the oilfield, to drive trapped oil from the oil-bearing sands into the wells.
Encouraged by the results from three years of pilot testing the technique in its east
block leases, Standard Oil initiated full-scale water-flooding operations in 1957.
Most of the injector wells were west of the fault, which itself was approximately
1,350 feet west of the LADWP’s reservoir; but a few lay east of the fault, close to the
reservoir’s southern wall (Hamilton and Meehan 1971).
Since the time of the field’s discovery, the northern boundary of the oil pool
had expanded approximately 300 feet, and now extended under the Baldwin Hills
Reservoir (op.cit.). Removal of oil and water from subsurface pools created voids
beneath the reservoir. As early as 1943, ground surveys conducted by engineers of
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had detected surface elevation
changes occurring in the Baldwin Hills (1964). By 1957, it was clear that these
elevation changes defined a bowl-shaped depression matching the boundary of the
Inglewood Oilfield. That same year, surface faulting began to appear, with ground

25
In the east block, fluid pressures measured in wells had declined from pre-exploitation pressures of
570 pounds per square inch to about 50 pounds per square inch.

74
rupturing especially evident in and adjacent to the area of water flooding operations.
Nonetheless, Standard Oil intensified operations with twenty one additional oil wells
between 1957 and 1963. During this time eight more faults became active, a
circumstance later attributed directly to water flooding practices (Hamilton and
Meehan 1971: 333-334).
In mid- and late 1963 water flooding operations intensified further, as four
additional wells near the reservoir were started. Shortly thereafter, a series of bizarre
operational problems occurred. Uncontrolled loss of fluid was encountered in five
injectors, while a sixth well was ‘pinched or sheared off at depth’ (Hamilton and
Meehan 1971: 340). Earlier, in May of that year, brine had been detected seeping
from surface cracks south of the reservoir. Even so, oil recovery operations
continued unabated, with operations managers seemingly unperturbed by this course
of events. Just over six months later, the reservoir ruptured. Although 8,000 residents
from the neighborhoods below the reservoir were frantically evacuated in the hours
before the reservoir failed, the 292 million gallons of treated drinking water that
disgorged through a 75 foot wide chasm in the dam wall killed five people, destroyed
65 homes, damaged 210 houses and apartments and caused over $12 million dollars
of property damage (Hamilton and Meehan 1971; Rasmussen 1994). There were no
reports of damage to the oilfield.
A 1964 report documenting the findings of the Department of Water
Resources’ investigation into the tragedy concluded that tectonic activity and
subsidence were to blame (State of California 1964). The LADWP immediately

75
compensated residents for the flood damage. In 1966 the City and its insurers filed
two law suits against oil companies operating in the vicinity of the reservoir. The
case was settled out of court in 1970 for nearly $3.9 million dollars, only a fraction
of the damages incurred by the City and local landowners.

Figure 7 – Kenneth Hahn at the launch of the park (ca. 1983).
(Reproduced with permission of the Huntington Library, Kenneth Hahn manuscript collection)

The park is born
Five years after the dam failure in 1968, Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth
Hahn was driving down La Cienega Boulevard accompanied by Assistant Chief
Deputy Davis Lear. Supervisor Hahn reputedly had an epiphany. Looking at the
former reservoir site, Hahn saw its potential for a park (figure 7). He was reputedly

76
influenced by the findings of the McCone Commission into the Watts uprising of
1965 and by the Kerner Commission report into civil unrest in the Nation’s cities.
These commissions recommended a suite of reforms to basic urban infrastructure
absent from many impoverished and marginalized communities of color, including
hospitals, schools, and parks as well as employment programs and programs for
desegregation. Hahn picked up on vocal demands of African-American residents for
better access to parks and recreation facilities. According to a community newsletter,
and corroborated by a personal interview with Mr. Jim Park – Assistant Director of
the L.A. County Department of Parks and Recreation (one of Hahn’s key staff at the
time), Supervisor Hahn was made aware of a Federal Revenue Sharing Program by
then Vice-President Spiro Agnew and saw the possibility of funding a large regional
park in the locality, an opportunity to ameliorate the dearth of parks in the locality,
and also to increase his support among African-American voters.
Hahn recognized that the Baldwin Hills were degraded, heavily contaminated
and of marginal value without extensive remediation. He also recognized that the
local state held property in the area and that a park in this location would partly
assuage his constituents’ desperate need for greenspace. Not surprisingly, Hahn
openly linked the need for the park to crime reduction in the aftermath of the Watts
riots, stating: ‘high incidences of crime, decreasing protection from law enforcement
and the fiscal crisis of the County’ necessitated a regional park ‘close to home’
26
.

26
Memo to County Board of Supervisors dated June 30, 1983, Huntington Library archives, Kenneth
Hahn manuscripts, photo collection, box 78, Baldwin Hills’ folder.

77
There is little doubt Hahn was responding to White insecurities about law and order
in framing this discourse of restorative powers of nature. But as I will show later,
Hahn was also deeply sympathetic to the plight of African-Americans living within
his supervisory district.
Official telling of the Baldwin Hills story suggests that a politically astute
and impressively networked Hahn garnered a remarkable coalition, ranging from the
local to the Executive levels of government, to support the development of a park on
the defunct reservoir site. This coalition consisted of County Supervisors, Mayors,
City Councilors, State Senators, State Assembly representatives, Governors, and
even Vice-Presidents and Presidents - attested to by numerous photographic
memorabilia hanging in the parks’ recreation center.
In 1968 Hahn began putting aside funding for the park. The Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors authorized preparation of a park plan in 1975, and
allocated two million dollars towards the proposed park. The County purchased a
small portion of Baldwin Hills site for a park site in 1976. Additional funding for
park expansion was provided via Federal, State and municipal sources, including the
State Bond Acts of 1980 and 1984. Ground was broken for the park on June 26, 1982
and the 138 acre park was officially opened on November 14, 1983.
27
At the time of
opening, the park had cost a mere $27 million dollars, mainly due to the fact that
significant portions were already government-owned property. Supervisor Kenneth

27
The park now encompasses some 350 acres of land and is still growing.

78
Hahn described the park as ‘one of the great urban parks in America.’
28
He promoted
it as a family-oriented space, and credited the existence of such a large area of
‘undeveloped’ land in its ‘natural state’ to the operation of the oil industry. Indeed,
Hahn’s own narrative account depicts the land as previously ‘going to waste’.
Missing from official accounts about the creation of the park is an
acknowledgment of how particular ideas about ‘nature’ were deployed by the Hahns
for political ends. My archival research has revealed that members of the Hahn
family were established members of the Baldwin Hills political elite, and had a
penchant for parks. Kenneth Hahn’s brother, Gordon R. Hahn was a long-serving
Los Angeles Councilman and a member of the California State Assembly from
1947-1953. Councilman Gordon Hahn was a strong supporter of bond initiatives to
finance park and recreation facilities within the city, holding them to be antidotes to
urban ills. For example, he was quoted in the Los Angeles Sentinel as stating:
‘legislation of this type is the best means we have for reducing our enormous
juvenile delinquency figures…’.
29

Kenneth Hahn publicly expressed similar sentiments. At the opening of new
facilities at Alondra Park in 1958, a regional park that he created in the City of
Gardena, Hahn stated: ‘relatively small expenditures in recreational facilities now
can save taxpayers millions of dollars by preventing juvenile delinquency’.
30
A week

28
Hahn, K. 1985, Letter to Residents.
29
Untitled Clipping from Los Angeles Sentinel, 1955, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington Library
archives, Box 59, 5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.
30
Press release dated October 30, 1959, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington Library, Box 59,
5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.

79
earlier at another park opening he had commented: ‘It is much wiser and more
economical to spend money constructively in providing our youth with good parks
and playgrounds than it is to be constantly building more jails, juvenile halls and
detention camps and adding police, probation officers and judges’.
31
For Hahn it was
critically important that: ‘children have healthful, wholesome recreation available to
them’. His mantra seemed to be: ‘wholesome recreation is a major deterrent to
juvenile delinquency’.
32
But he also recognized that ‘adults too, need open green
areas where they can relax from the tensions and strains of modern living’.
33

Parks were a key platform in Hahn’s impressive political career and he is
remembered by many as a park crusader. Kenneth Hahn was personally responsible
for the creation, upgrading and redevelopment of over 30 municipal parks in the
previously neglected neighborhoods South Los Angeles at a time when civil rights
were not widely recognized. He named many of them after prominent African
Americans. Hahn also created over a dozen public golf courses and 18 municipal
swimming pools, numerous senior citizens centers and was instrumental in opening
school grounds for community recreation. Hahn instigated free pool attendance in
the ‘minority’ neighborhoods that formed his constituency. He also established
security guards for park facilities, since there was widespread violence in parks at the

31
Press release dated October 23, 1959, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington Library, Box 59,
5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.
32
Press release for Lennox Park dated October 5, 1959, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington
Library archives, Box 59, 5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.
33
Press release dated August 1, 1958, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington Library archives, Box
59, 5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.

80
time, including gang-related homicides, and he was instrumental in bringing United
States Department of Agriculture summer nutrition programs to parks.
Hahn’s park openings were highly symbolic affairs. They were attended by
large numbers of guests (over 500 at times), and Hahn made a personal point of
elevating African American civic leaders to prominence during the opening
ceremonies. Park opening events were attended by leaders from the NAACP
(National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), Episcopal and
Baptist churches, the urban league and local chambers of commerce. He was a
staunch supporter of civil rights and counted Martin Luther King Jr. among his
friends, being the only elected official to greet King when he visited Los Angeles.
34

Hahn even once said that: ‘the black church has been my strength and my shield, a
shield to me against my enemies’.
35

The creation of Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (named to
commemorate 40 years of Kenneth Hahn’s service to the County) was an
achievement made possible largely by Hahn’s political acumen. The youngest person
to ever serve on the County Board of Supervisors (first elected in 1952), Hahn
became its longest serving member. He served eight consecutive terms, and was
elected each term by record margins. Hahn’s aptitude for networking at all levels of
politics and ability to garner cooperation for a variety of projects made him a

34
Letter from Mrs. King to Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington Library archives, Box 59,
5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.
35
Hahn speaking at a celebration of his career, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, September 21, 1990.

81
formidable local politician.
36
Hahn was a friend of President’s Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Ford, Carter and Reagan and had a good working relationship with
Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon. Letters from State, regional and municipal
agencies attest to Hahn’s political savvy, and illustrate the level of widespread
support for his park proposals (County of Los Angeles 1976; Park 1981). Indeed,
there were no objections to the Baldwin Hills Park (as it was then known) from any
government agency, at any level. The only objections to the park proposal came from
the oil industry.
Oil in the political machinery
An examination of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for the proposed park casts
light upon the relationship between the oil producers and the local politicians.
Admittedly, some of the oil companies’ responses to the EIRs were apathetic or
complacent. For example Burmah Oil offered ‘no comment’ on the proposal (County
of Los Angeles 1976: attachment 15) and Shell stated that ‘we assume that, if the
park is acquired, the County would evaluate what they were taking and make the
park and the oil field compatible’ (County of Los Angeles 1976: attachment 16).
Other stakeholders including the First Colony Life insurance Company and Los
Angeles Investment Company were altogether more belligerent and contemplated
litigation (County of Los Angeles 1976: attachment 17). The California Southern Oil
Company openly criticized the County’s projections as to the lifespan of the oilfield
(County of Los Angeles 1976: attachment 14) and Chevron accused the County of

36
Hahn is credited with the idea of installing emergency telephones on Los Angeles’ freeways.

82
failure to analyze interim development plans, raising issues of safety, accessibility
and traffic control (County of Los Angeles 1976: attachment 18). Chevron’s stance
ossified in the early 1980s.
By 1981, Chevron had become openly hostile towards the park (Park 1981:
attachment 10). The company asserted that the park plans were too big and that
coexistence with oil production was impossible. They argued for ‘geographically
limiting’ the park to 400 acres, claiming that this would meet the County’s
objectives. Chevron also highlighted what they called ‘a staggering sum of public
funds especially in view of the …climate of fiscal conservatism’ (op. cit.). Finally,
Chevron requested that all references to links between oil production and the
Baldwin Hills Reservoir failure be ‘omitted from the final report’ (op. cit). The
County partly assuaged Chevron’s concerns, advising that traffic, safety and user
conflicts would be properly addressed though park planning, but maintained its
stance that the park would eventually total 1,300 acres in area, to compensate for the
dismal provision of regional open space in the inner city and to ‘improve the quality
of life in this urban area’ (Park 1981).
Lawyers Flint and MacKay acting for these stakeholders accused the County
of a ‘total failure of the initial draft EIR to consider the safety factors involved in
mixing a producing oil facility and a large scale recreational area’, but this was not
their only concern. They represented the oil field as an ‘attractive nuisance’ that
would be irresistible to park users. Their letter contained a thinly veiled threat
referring to a possible violation of an injunction granted by Judge David Thomas on

83
July 5, 1979 where it was asserted that the park would contravene the zoning of the
land. Nonetheless, the County dismissed all of these claims outright. But, Flint and
MacKay were not through. Acting on behalf of the Los Angeles Investment
Company, in a 27 page submission to the County dated April 8, 1981 (Park 1981),
Flint and MacKay referred to the ‘staggering costs of acquisition’, also echoing
Chevron’s earlier sentiments. They further complained that they although they had
petitioned Supervisors Dana and Antonovich to intervene on their behalf, their
requests had been ignored. This is in itself a revealing insight into local politics, as
Flint and MacKay tried to circumvent Supervisor Hahn who was the representative
for the district, presumably because the park was his idea.
At the last minute, there was a flurry of resistance to the park from a local
homeowner’s coalition. In a letter to the County Supervisors dated June 30, 1983,
some residents stated that since the park was proposed ‘residences have changed
ownership, the economic base has changed, crime has escalated and city serviced
have declined’.
37
This group strongly objected to several park activities including
group and overnight camping, amphitheaters, access routed for hiking from
residential streets, and vista points giving ‘burglar’s a bird’s-eye view of [nearby]
homes’ (op. cit.). The group promoted developing the park as an inner city wildlife
sanctuary, building concrete walls to separate homes from the park, 24 hour security
patrols and closing the park after 9 pm. Julian Edmondson, Chairman of the 4500

37
Letter from homeowners to County Supervisors dated June 30, 1983, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts,
Huntington Library archives, Box 59, 5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.

84
Don Filipe Block Club joined the fray. He claimed that 1,800 homeowners feared
crime, additional noise, high traffic volumes, and drug use attributable to the park.
38

County Supervisors acted quickly to limit dissent by erecting boundary fences and
circulating newsletters promoting the benefits of the park as a place for family
recreation. Strict opening hours were also implemented.
Ultimately, on November 14, 1983, the former reservoir site became home to
the new park – the fifth largest urban park in the US. Since then, the County has
acquired over 500-acres of former oilfield for additional parkland. Interestingly, an
additional 200 acres was later donated by Chevron (Standard Oil Company), at an
overall cost of $6.8 million dollars, perhaps because the company sensed that the
power balance in municipal politics had shifted decisively in favor of the local
community. At the time of writing, the Inglewood Oil Field remains an active
producer, with most production coming from the ongoing practice of direct injection.
The 420 oil wells that remain active yield an estimated 6,900 barrels of crude oil and
3.2 million cubic feet of natural gas daily. Seismic events continue to plague the
area, many attributed to oil production. Notably, the elliptical subsidence area
defining the northwest portion of the oilfield continues to subside at a rate of 1 to 2
inches per year. This subsidence has in part contributed to narrative portrayals of the
Baldwin Hills as inherently seismically and socially unstable.

38
Wave Community Newspaper, July 13, 1983, Kenneth Hahn manuscripts, Huntington Library
archives, Box 59, 5.3.2.6.1, folder 4.

85
Reprise: environmental racism and the Baldwin Hills
It is appropriate here to recount one final event that captures the enduring
contestations over nature in the Baldwin Hills. At the height of the California Energy
Crisis, early in 2001, Governor Gray Davis took desperate action to meet the State’s
voracious energy appetites. He ordered a fast-tracking of the approval process for
small energy plants designed to supplement supplies during peak periods of demand.
Normally these types of power plants would require an extensive environmental
review process. With the stroke of a pen Davis, using his emergency powers,
reduced to the period to a mere twenty-one days (Mozingo 2001a; Mozingo 2001b;
Mozingo 2001d). In May of 2001, a joint venture of Stocker Resources who was at
the time the largest lessee of the Baldwin Hills oilfield, and La Jolla Energy
Development Incorporated proposed to develop a 53 megawatt ‘peaker’ plant on the
oilfield, but within the site of the future Baldwin Hills Park. The proposal was met
with a wall of protest from residents who saw it as another state-sanctioned act of
environmental racism.
Over 1,200 residents and community activists turned out at State Energy
Commission public hearings to voice their objections to the plant. Unlike the early
days of the Baldwin Hills, when white politicians represented the interests of black
residents, things had changed. Governor Davis’ support for the proposal was largely
motivated by a need to minimize the political crisis in which he found himself when
California’s crippled energy reserves necessitated rolling blackouts. Local residents

86
vehemently fought the proposal. They were supported by African-American
politicians and leaders, including State Senator Kevin Murray, State Assemblyman
Herb Wesson, and County Supervisor Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, L.A. Unified
School District Board President Genethia Hayes, and their own United Homeowners
Associations. The local residents now had the political clout necessary to resist the
plant, and were ultimately successful. In June, 2001 one of the partners La Jolla
Energy Development backed away from the proposal, and shortly thereafter the State
Energy Commission cancelled its meeting to consider the proposal (Mozingo 2001c).
Conclusion
Today the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area is a beloved community asset,
intensively utilized by local and regional residents. According to the State of
California (2002), each summer over 20,000 visitors use the park for a diverse range
of active and passive recreational activities. Walking, jogging, picnicking, hiking,
fishing, sunbathing, listening to music, people watching and experiencing nature are
popular activities. People come to the park to relax, to escape their hot apartments, to
enjoy time with their children and to play organized sports. The park contains four
playgrounds, a fishing lake, two baseball diamonds with lighting, a multi-purpose
field, a half basketball court, a sand volleyball court and a community building with
a meeting room. Other facilities include eight rental picnic shelters over 100 picnic
tables scattered throughout the park, eight large barbecue pits and 60 smaller ones, as
well as walking trails and children’s play equipment. On any given day of the week

87
the park is filled with families having picnics, people jogging, kids fishing in the lake
stocked with catfish, nature lovers, couples walking along the look-out trails,
teenagers playing football, students lying on blankets studying, people watchers, and
a plethora of other park users. On the weekends, numbers swell dramatically as
families flock to the park to escape the heat, grime and congestion of the city.
Weekends and public holidays attract a vehicle entrance fee. Although not a large
imposition, it is a likely deterrent to some weekend use.
It is astonishing that the Baldwin Hills, situated as they are in the heart of Los
Angeles, have survived with large sections remaining relatively intact and
undeveloped. This ‘fortunate coincidence’ may be attributed to the fact that oil
extraction was far more profitable than land development (Mozingo 2001d). In
Southern California there are several examples where oil fields have recently been
decommissioned and redeveloped for greenspace, including parks and wildlife
reserves. The Puente - Chino Hills and the Bolsa Chica wetlands (the latter near
Huntington Beach) are pertinent cases. A large regional park in Torrance – the 98
acre Willowbrook Recreation Area, developed in the 1980s is another relevant
example. Formerly an oil tank farm, it was redeveloped under the guidance of
Kenneth Hahn into a remarkably similar park to the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation
Area, complete with fishing lake, urban forest and picnic areas. Political ecology
offers insights into why these land use transformations have occurred.
Parks, reserves and other forms of greenspace in the city are socially
produced versions of nature, and reflect tensions, divisions and inequalities present

88
in broader society. A political ecology approach to parks focuses on decision-making
processes about the allocation and maintenance of urban greenspace resources, and
the ways multiple axes of difference (e.g. race, class and gender) configure access to
these environmental assets (e.g. Brownlow 2005; Brownlow 2006). This is because
political ecology reframes many of the traditional concerns surrounding the politics
of urban greenspace distribution - access to environmental benefits and freedom
from environmental harms, by focusing on the intersection of marginality, local scale
politics and environmental transformation (Bebbington and Batterbury 2001). As
Swyngedouw and Heynen (2003: 910) explain: ‘economic, political and cultural
processes inherent to urban landscape production’ are responsible for urban
environmental benefits and harms that are ‘spatially differentiated and highly
uneven’.
Although at face value the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area may seem to
be a benevolent gesture on the part of the local state to a park deprived inner-city
community, I believe otherwise. Specifically, by interrogating Progressivist tropes of
nature as ‘purifier and source of moral uplift’ (Baldwin 1999; Boyer 1978) I have
shown in this chapter that that new urban parks in Los Angeles have been marshaled
to assuage the needs of inner city people of color and the urban poor demanding a
better quality of life. Moreover, through park development the local state has
divested itself of a potential liability. Converting land that had only marginal
economic value – pockmarked as it is with oil wells, soaked in contaminants from oil
extraction and clearly geologically unstable, into a park for inner-city people of

89
color, the local state has fulfilled both political and economic imperatives. Clearly
parks are a much needed environmental benefit within Los Angeles inner city
neighborhoods. And the number of people who use the Kenneth Hahn State
Recreation Area attests to the need for urban greenspace.
Many proponents of park based urban revitalization in Los Angeles have
operationalized a discourse of nature that privileges physical and moral uplift and
economic improvement to combat transgressive behavior by the urban poor and
people of color (Hartman 2001; Madge 1997; McInroy 2000). The cliché about idle
hands has political purchase in a city where gang activity and violent crime are
everyday occurrences. Indeed, Gordon Hahn’s ‘delinquent youth’ are specters that
continue to haunt the reformist imaginations of Los Angeles’ politicians,
entrepreneurs and community groups intent on reclaiming inner sites regarded as
‘idle’, ‘derelict’ or ‘underutilized’ land. It must be remembered that among the many
reforms proposed by the Kerner, McCone and Christopher Commission reports
(released after the 1965 Watts and 1992 Los Angeles uprising) White politicians
linked park provision with civil order. And in some ways this situation appears to
have changed very little.
In a recent example, the liberal Center for Law in the Public Interest (CLIPI),
a strong proponent of urban parks in Los Angeles, stated in its report on sport and
urban parks to the California Department of Parks and recreation:
Soccer is among the most valued cultural and historical
resources for Latino and other immigrant communities.
Soccer provides an alternative to gangs, crimes, drugs,

90
violence, prostitution, and unwanted pregnancies.
Soccer is a central part of the social meaning diverse
communities give to parks. (Garcia et al. 2002: 3)

In asserting that: ‘active recreation programs prevent gang violence, crime,
prostitution, drug abuse, teen sex, and unwanted teen pregnancies’ (Garcia et al.
2002: 25) the organization clearly illustrates the notion that parks are ideologically
infused socio-natures. There is a direct link here with past narratives about the
restorative powers of nature and the control of people seen as undesirable or unruly
(Cronon 1996; Di Chiro 1996; Olwig 1996; Proctor and Pincetl 1996; Smith 2004).
Despite the rhetoric of social equity and environmental restoration, in Los Angeles it
seems we have not come very far from the environmentally deterministic and elitist
ideals that underpinned the urban parks movement of the 19th century, ideas of
‘Nature’ that were, and still are, deployed by powerful social and political actors for
economic, social and political gains, often at the expense of the working class and
people of color.
Yet it cannot be denied that new parks are desperately needed in inner city
Los Angeles. Communities of color have recently successfully mobilized to thwart
further industrial and warehousing developments in their neighborhoods and have
effectively captured significant public funding for the development of new parks in
their neighborhoods. Particularly telling is the fact that many of these communities
are demanding a mix of active and passive recreation. Access to nature and
ecological restoration are high on their agenda of urban reform. And perhaps what is

91
really important is that despite the paternalistic and moralistic undertones that
underpinned the creation of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, this park has
become cherished by local communities of color.
What this suggests is that these communities are not passive subjects, but
rather are active agents working to shape their urban ecologies. Just as Hahn
capitalized on African-American desire for parks to win electoral support, so too did
these communities seize available political and economic opportunities to garner
more parks. The Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area is not a static entity; it is still
evolving as a park space. Although it may have begun as a space of tutelage, the park
has been appropriated and transformed by local communities actively resisting
racialized actions of the State. African-Americans and Latinos have claimed this
park space as their own and are inscribing it with their own meanings. And
politicians of color have successfully challenged and resisted attempts to degrade the
park.
As communities of color in Los Angeles build upon these early successes, it
is clear that a new urban parks movement is emerging within the city – a movement
driven from the bottom-up by communities of color and the urban poor, a movement
that is reconfiguring previously degraded urban environments in radical new ways, a
movement that promises to dramatically improve the social and ecological health of
the city. Their vision of salubrious urban environments offers hope to those seeking
more socially just and ecologically sustainable cities (While et al. 2004).

92
In the next chapter I consider a different type of park - the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area. As we shall see, this urban national park was
developed under the aegis of the ‘parks to people’ movement in the late 1970s, with
the intent of bring the national park experience to Los Angeles impoverished and
socially disadvantaged residents. However, the park is now patronized by a
predominantly White clientele. What are the reasons for this? Why do people of
color visit the park in comparatively fewer numbers? Is it because they have different
recreational preferences? Or are cultural values responsible? Perhaps the
characteristics of the park itself and of neighborhoods surrounding the park are
deterrents to use. These are just some of the questions that I seek to answer.

93
Chapter 3 Race, space and national park use:
The Santa Monica Mountains

Introduction
In the previous chapter I focused on how race has shaped the development of the
Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area in Los Angeles’ Baldwin Hills. I suggested that
in some ways park-making in Los Angeles has been a political tool. Some politicians
have regarded park provision as a palliative for a range of social ills, and have wooed
potential voters with promises of social reform through park provision. But I have
also argued that local communities of color have actively resisted racialized State
actions, claiming this park for their own and shaping it to fit their needs and desires
for access to urban nature.
In this chapter I shift my focus to a different kind of park – the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA). Unlike the Kenneth Hahn State
Park, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is a wildland park. It
has few active recreation facilities and it is managed primarily from a conservation
perspective. Almost thirty years ago, shortly after its creation, the National Park
Service commissioned a study of this park to see how ‘minority groups’ perceived
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and whether the park would
appeal to those groups. The study found that many potential user groups were
unaware of the park’s existence. Importantly, people of color who were aware of the

94
park perceived it to be ‘an elite rich person’s area’ and a ‘white man’s world’ (Mark
and Holmes 1981: 5).
As I highlighted in chapter 1, leisure researchers have suggested that park use
is a function of cultural values, experiences of discrimination and socio-economic
status. According to leisure researchers, people of color will be disinclined to use
wildland greenspaces like the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
because they prefer more developed parks, enjoy more passive forms of recreation,
have experienced racism when visiting the park or cannot afford the time or money it
takes to visit the park.
In this chapter I test these assertions by examining the park use behaviors of
visitors to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Together with
colleagues for the USC Center for Sustainable Cities and volunteers from the
National Park Service, in the summer of 2002 I conducted a survey of visitors to this
national park. Two objectives underpinned my research: (i) to understand if there
were ethno-racial differences in the ways visitors utilized the park; and (ii) to
establish if observed differences were attributable to variations in socio-demographic
characteristics, park accessibility, cultural preferences, or visitors’ attitudes towards
the park.
If previous research by the National Park Service is correct, we can expect
fewer people of color to use the park because they lack knowledge about the park
and perceive it to be ‘a white man’s world’. If leisure researchers are correct, people
of color will not be well-represented among park users because they prefer other

95
types of recreational spaces, feel unwelcome in the park, or cannot afford to visit the
park. Either way, if White visitors dominate such a large urban greenspace within
reasonable proximity to park-poor communities of color, an environmental injustice
may be present.
Environmental justice and urban national parks
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, urban policy-makers embarked on a program of
park reform to manage growing disaffection, racial tensions and escalating violence
in the nation’s largest cities. The findings of the McCone Commission into Los
Angeles’ Watts uprising of 1965 for example, highlighted – among other things, the
need for additional park provision in the poorest and most vulnerable parts of the city
(Byrne et al. 2007; West 1989). At a federal level, US Secretary of the Interior
Walter J. Hickel, outlined an agenda for the establishment of urban national parks
(Trelsad 1997). Hickel’s ‘parks to people’ initiative sought to bring the national park
experience to socio-economically disadvantaged urban residents (Foresta 1984;
McIntire 1981).
Located on the doorstep of the nation’s largest cities, urban national parks
were intended to provide both conservation and recreation functions (Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs 1976). Policy makers believed that these parks would
bring fresh air, solitude, and opportunities to encounter nature to the urban poor and
socially disadvantaged - who were otherwise unable to enjoy such benefits that
national parks traditionally provide (Foresta 1984). To date though, little research

96
exists to evaluate whether or not urban national parks do in fact confer public health
and environmental justice benefits to disadvantaged urban populations.
It is unclear whether Hickel was aware that from their inception, national
parks had been marred by acts of social exclusion - such as the forcible removal
Native Americans from land identified for park development (Meeker et al. 1973;
Olwig 1996; Olwig 2005; Spence 1999)
39
, or that African-Americans had
historically been excluded from national parks (Floyd 1999; Foresta 1984; Foster
1999; Johnson 1998; Johnson et al. 1998; Johnson 2005; Meeker et al. 1973; Spence
1999). What is clear, however, is that like many others at that time, Hickel believed
urban greenspace could function as a palliative for a range of social and
environmental ills (Cicchetti 1971; Cranz 1978; Cranz 1982; French 1973; Gagen
2004; Kornblum 1983; National Park Service 1975), an idea he shared with the
progenitors of America’s first public parks (Bachin 2003; Foley and Ward 1993;
Gray 1973; Meeker et al. 1973; Storman 1991; Taylor 1999; Young 1996).
In just six years, following Hickel’s initiative, the US Congress created five
urban national parks. The first were New York’s Gateway National Recreation Area
(26,607 acres / 10,767 ha) and San Francisco’s Golden Gate National Recreation
Area (75,000 acres / 30,351 ha). Both were established on October 27, 1972. They
were quickly followed by: the Cuyahoga River Valley National Recreation Area in
Cleveland - created on December 27, 1974 (33,000 acres / 13,354 ha); the

39
Alienation and dispossession were also features of urban park development, and many poor
African-American and Irish working class communities were destroyed or disenfranchised through
park creation (Baldwin, 1999; Gandy, 2002; Marne, 2001; Olwig, 2005).

97
Chattahoochee National Recreation Area in Atlanta - created on August 15, 1978
(10,000 acres / 4,047 ha); and Los Angeles’ Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area (153,075 acres / 61,947 ha), created on November 10, 1978 (see
figure 8).
40
All of these parks were located in close proximity to urban populations -
two on the doorsteps of America’s largest cities. In under a decade, they accounted
for a third of total annual visits to the US national park system (Everhart 1983;
Sellars 1999).

Figure 8 – The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area

40
The area of the park held in public ownership is less than half this size – 63,500 acres, of which
21,500 acres are held by the National Park Service and 42,000 acres are held by California State
Parks. The entire unit is managed by the National Park Service.

98
Researchers have recently substantiated Hickel and others’ idea that parks of
all varieties confer health-giving benefits upon their users (de Vries et al. 2003;
Manning and More 2002; Williams 2006). These benefits include stress relief,
increased physical activity, social cohesion, improved mental health and
psychological wellbeing (Coen and Ross 2006; de Vries et al. 2003; Ho et al. 2005;
Hung and Crompton 2006; Kaplan 2001; Kaplan et al. 2004; Kleiber et al. 2002;
Krenichyn 2006; Kuo 2001; Maller et al. 2005; Orsega-Smith et al. 2004; Ulrich
1979; Ulrich 1984; Ulrich and Addoms 1981; Ulrich et al. 1990; Ulrich et al. 1991).
Parks may also play a role in mitigating sedentary lifestyles that are now associated
with obesity, coronary heart disease and several types of cancer (e.g. Coen and Ross
2006; Frank 2005; Frank and Engelke 2001; Ho et al. 2005; Orsega-Smith et al.
2004; Saelens et al. 2006; Saelens et al. 2003). Public health researchers have
suggested that improved access parks, urban trails, and other urban greenspaces
might foster increased physical activity (Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005; Coen and Ross
2006; Gobster 2005; Gordon 2002; Krenichyn 2006; Maller et al. 2005; Reynolds et
al. 2007; Saelens et al. 2006).
But park benefits may not be evenly distributed among urban populations
(Coen and Ross 2006; Timperio et al. 2005; Wolch et al. 2005). It seems that urban
open spaces, especially those at the urban-wildlands interface, are not utilized by
people of color at rates similar to those of White urban populations. Parks benefits
thus accrue disproportionately to White and affluent patrons who enjoy superior park
access, whereas people of color have more limited access to park space, make fewer

99
visits to urban open spaces, and use parks spaces differently (Floyd 1999; Floyd et
al. 1994; Gobster 2002; Goldsmith 1994; Meeker et al. 1973; West 1989; West
1993). Moreover, parks located within communities of color may be poorly funded,
inadequately maintained and may lack the types of facilities conducive to intensive
utilization that are generally found in larger regional parks (Loukaitou-Sideris 1995;
Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002). Access to parks is thus an important
environmental justice issue.
Environmental justice activists and researchers have long emphasized the
inequitable exposure of people of color and the poor to environmental harms such as
hazardous land uses (e.g. toxic waste storage and disposal facilities) and the
inequitable application of environmental protection policies to those communities
(e.g. Bullard 1993; Bullard 1995; Cutter 1995; Cutter et al. 2000; Pastor et al. 2005;
Pastor et al. 2001; Perhac 1999; Pulido 2000; Pulido et al. 1996). But a fresh
perspective has emerged over the past decade, wherein inferior access to
environmental benefits – or nature’s services (e.g. fresh water, clean air, good quality
food, open space) is also regarded as an environmental inequity (Barnett 2001; Di
Chiro 1996; Heynen 2003; Heynen 2006; Optow and Clayton 1994; Swyngedouw
and Hynen 2003).
A growing cadre of researchers from a range of disciplines has subsequently
begun to investigate the environmental justice implications of poor access to urban
parks and greenspace (Byrne et al. 2007; Coen and Ross 2006; Frumkin 2005;
Henderson and Wall 1979; Hester Jr. et al. 1999; Koehler and Wrightson 1987;

100
Ravenscroft and Markwell 2000; Rishbeth 2001; Smoyer-Tomic et al. 2004;
Timperio et al. 2005; Wolch et al. 2005). Although conflicting results have been
reported (e.g. Floyd and Johnson 2002; Lindsey et al. 2001; Nicholls 2001; Talen
1998; Talen and Anselin 1998; Tarrant and Cordell 1999) increasing evidence
suggests that park inequity may be widespread (Barnett 2001; Brownlow 2005;
Brownlow 2006; Nicholls 2001; Pincetl and Gearin 2005; Pulido 2000; Wolch et al.
2005). Regrettably, researchers have paid scant attention to urban national parks.
In the remainder of this chapter I show how the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area bears many of the hallmarks of a racially differentiated
urban open space, with resulting public health and environmental justice
ramifications. I discuss results of a recreational trail use survey which suggest that
the park may not cater to the needs of Los Angeles’ park deprived communities,
despite having been created to bolster the availability of urban wildlands to just those
residents.
Methods
In the summer of 2002 I conducted a survey of visitors to trails within the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area for the National Park Service.
Administered by three agencies – the National Park Service, the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
- the park is comprised of a mosaic of public and private property. Situated less than

101
10 miles (approximately 16 km) from downtown Los Angeles, the park is literally on
the doorstep of the city.
Adjoining of one of North America’s fastest growing, and racially diverse,
metropolitan regions, the park provides an excellent case study for examining
racially-differentiated access and use of an urban national park. The park itself is
bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the south, Simi Hills to the North, Las Posas Road
to the west and Hollywood Freeway to the east (see figure 9).

Figure 9 – Location of the National Park

Comprised of over 150,000 acres (60,000 ha) of peaks, canyons, beaches, salt
marshes, and critically endangered remnant sage scrub and oak-woodland vegetation,

102
the park is both a significant ecological preserve and a valuable recreational
resource.

The purpose of my survey was to provide information to park planners from
the above-mentioned agencies to assist in the development of an Interagency
Regional Trail Management Plan for the park. Six inter-related research questions
underpinned my study: (1) do visitors to trails within the park differ in their socio-
demographic characteristics?; (2) are there ethno-racial variations in the frequency of
park visitation?; (3) are there differences in the activities of the various ethno-racial
groups who use the park?; (4) are there variations in the attitudes of these ethno-
racial groups towards the Santa Monica Mountains?; (5) do these ethno-racial groups
experience different types of conflict within the park?; (6) and do they encounter
different barriers to accessing the park?
I used an intercept survey to collect diverse data on trail use within the park.

I
surveyed users on site because my experience suggested that response rates for a
mail-back survey would be inadequate. The survey instrument was developed in
consultation with staff from the National Park Service and the Park Service’s visiting
chief social scientist. The instrument was approved by the Federal Office of
Management and Budget. I held a training sessions with National Park Service
volunteers who were to administer the survey, and minor modifications were made
based upon their feedback. The instrument was also reviewed and approved by the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board.

103
The survey instrument was comprised of 28 questions, consisting of fill in the
blank, multiple choice and Likert-scale items (see Appendix 1).
41
I collected a range
of socio-demographic information, including trail users’ age, sex, race and ethnicity,
children under 18, household composition, home ownership, educational attainment,
nationality, languages spoken at home, income and disability. I included questions
about visitors’ use of the national park including: their reason for visiting the park;
how often they visited; the activities they undertook while in the park; barriers they
encountered to visitation; the names of local parks they visited instead of the national
park; the distance traveled to get to the park; and their mode of travel (private
automobile, public transport etc.). I also gathered information on visitor safety issues
and visitor attitudes towards the mountains, and I sought to ascertain the most
frequently visited trails.
I targeted the survey at visitors 18 years of age or older, who visited 23
primary trailheads and 10 secondary neighborhood entrances scattered throughout
the park. National Park Service staff had a priori identified these trailheads as
important. I administered the surveys over the course of two weekends, July 13-14
and July 21-22, 2002 - during morning (8am-1pm) and afternoon (3pm-7pm) shifts -
to capture peak utilization periods. I also sought to avoid the hottest hours of the day
when visitors were unlikely to be on the trails. Although I did not pay respondents to

41
The instrument was administered only in English. Both time and financial restrictions limited my
ability to have the instrument translated into, and back translated from, other languages e.g. Spanish.

104
participate, they were offered a gift bag from REI™ as an incentive for participation.
The gift bag contained a bottle of water, snack bar and brochures.
I randomly selected potential respondents from the visitor stream. Visitors
were greeted either as they approached the trails for afternoon users or as they exited
the trail in the case of early morning visitors (see figure 3).
42
I advised potential
respondents about the nature of my research, and then invited them to complete the
survey. Participation was strictly voluntary and respondents filled in their own
survey forms. Those visitors who declined to participate were recorded on a non-
response sheet, together with information about the date and time of their visit, their
sex, the number of people who were in their group, whether children accompanied
them, and the observed activity that the non-respondent might be undertaking (e.g.
cycling, dog-walking, etc.). Information regarding the total number of visitors to
each trail head was also entered on a log sheet. Most respondents completed the
survey in approximately 8-9 minutes.
43
Teams of counters were also stationed at the
trailheads to record the number of users entering the trails.

42
Staff administering the survey used a standardized greeting sheet approved by the National Park
Service and the University’s Institutional Review Board.
43
The survey and estimated time for completion was approved by the Federal Office of Management
and Budget in accordance with National Park Service Requirements.

105

Figure 10 – A trailhead in the park

I collected the above-described data immediately adjacent to trail heads. For
high-volume trails - particularly destination park sites like Paramount Ranch - there
were often multiple trail heads. In such places I differentiated user groups by the
specific trail heads through which they entered the park.
Analysis
Completed surveys were checked for missing or incomprehensible answers. Data
were tabulated and entered into a database. SPSS was used to undertake Chi-square
and ANOVA analyses to determine associations.
I used a geographic information system (Arc GIS 3.2) to analyze spatial data,
since multiple questions on the survey furnished geographic information (e.g. trail

106
users’ residential zip code, nearest major street intersection, and estimated travel
time to the park). I geocoded street intersections where provided, and calculated
absolute distances from the park to those intersections. A frequency analysis was
performed to delimit the spatial extent of the park’s catchment area, enabling us to
analyze the socio-demographic differences between park users and non-users. I then
imported US 2000 census data for census districts within the park catchment - using
TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) data. I
compiled descriptive statistics for the census districts and then conducted a
correlation analysis to determine if travel distances, race and frequency of visitation
were related.
It should be noted that a small number of survey items generated confused
responses concerning, for example, what constituted a ‘local park’. Some questions,
based directly on standard queries used by the US Census of Population, were
perceived as ambiguous and many Hispanic/Latino respondents left the ethnicity
question blank, suggesting that they did not identify with the choices provided.
Directions for a forced-choice question about reasons for protecting the Santa
Monica Mountains were ignored by many respondents who ticked both categories.
Finally, some respondents who answered a question on user impacts appeared to
have answered that question based on opinion rather than personal experience.

107
Results
A total of 12,388 people visited park trails during the survey period. Almost 10%
(1,228 visitors) were invited to participate in the survey and only 242 declined to
participate. This yielded an 82% response rate. Of the 986 completed surveys just
over 7% were unusable due to response errors, inaccuracies or illegible content,
leaving a functional sample of 912 surveys. The majority of non-respondents were
male, largely reflecting the sex ratio of the overall survey sample. A total of 746
people within groups did not respond to the survey. They were accompanied by 36
companion animals and 220 children (table 1).
Visitors’ socio-demographic characteristics
The typical park visitor was white, male, middle aged, and was born in the United
States. He spoke English, was college - educated, was relatively affluent (earning
between $50, 000 and $75, 000 per annum), owned his own home, did not have
children under 18 years of age, lived in a single household, visited the park with
friends and was a return visitor (table 1). Notwithstanding this, significant variation
existed among park visitors.
Most visitors earned between $50,000 and $100,000 per annum. About one
fifth reported earning $50,000 to $75,000 per annum.
44
Most visitors were also very
well-educated (85.6% possessed a college degree). Less than one percent did not
have a high school diploma or GED. Although more men (59.3%) than women

44
It should be noted that 10.4% of those surveyed did not wish to report household income.

108
Notes: 1. Over 56 different nationalities were represented among visitors to the park. 2. Latinos may
have responded as being either Black or White so percentages add up to more than 100%.

Table 1 – Socio-demographic profile of trail users
Demographic characteristic Number Percentage
Sex (n=912)
Female trail users 371 40.7
Male trail users 541 59.3

Age (n=912)
18-39 years 438 48.0
40-64 years 445 48.8
Over 65 years 29 3.2

Education (n=898)
High school student 52 5.8
No high school 8 0.9
High school / GED 69 7.7
College 767 85.6

Income (n=884)
Less than $25, 000 51 5.8
$25,000 - $50, 000 139 15.7
$50,000 - $75, 000 164 18.6
$75,000 - $100, 000 130 14.7
More than $ 100,000 308 34.8
Did not wish to answer 92 10.4

Household composition (n=891)
Single 294 33.0
Unrelated adults 81 9.1
Couple without children <18 232 26.0
Couple with children <18 171 19.2
Single parent with children <18 42 4.7
Multigenerational household 71 8.0

Home ownership (n=891)
Own home 562 63.1
Rent 329 36.9

Country of origin (n=912)
USA 705 77.3
Mexico 20 2.2
Iran 15 1.6
Other
1
172 18.9
More than 20 years in USA 100 56.2

Race (n=912)
Native American or Alaskan Native 12 1.3
Asian 50 5.5
Black or African-American 15 1.6
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 5 0.5
White 657 72.0
Did not wish to answer 158 17.3
Latino (n=871)
2
103 11.8

109
visited the park, this sex skew possibly reflects the higher proportion of visitors who
pursued adventure sports like mountain biking (typically a male dominated sport).
Indeed, most mountain bikers surveyed were male (86.1%), whereas equestrians
were mostly females (80%). The median age of park users was 40.
Survey respondents were predominantly White (72%). The next most
numerous ethno-racial groups in the park were Latinos (11.8%), followed by Asians
(5.5%). African-Americans, Native Americans / Alaskan natives and Native
Hawaiians / Pacific Islanders were the least represented ethno-racial groups in the
sample (table 1).
45
I limit my discussion in the balance of the chapter to the three
dominant ethno-racial groups - Whites, Latinos and Asians, because data on the
other groups are too small to make meaningful comparisons.
46
The three dominant
groups varied significantly by age and income level, but not by educational
attainment or residence time in the US (table 2). However, White visitors were
significantly older than Latinos and Asians, and a significantly higher proportion of
the latter two groups earned lower incomes than their White counterparts.
Park visitors were born in a variety of countries - 56 different nationalities
were represented. Most respondents were born in the United States (77.3%),
followed by Mexico, Iran, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom. For those
visitors not born in the United States, the median duration of residence in the US was

45
A high proportion of respondents (17.3%) did not wish to answer the question about race, perhaps
indicative of some level of personal disaffection on the part of respondents regarding practices of
differentiating between individuals based upon social constructs such as ‘race’.
46
The numbers of visitors from other ethno-racial groups such as African-Americans or Native-
Americans was too small to make statistical inferences, so they were combined under a group called
‘other’.

110
Variable White Latino
1
Asian
Age (years) (mean)** 41.9 35.5 37.2
Education (level) % High school student 5.1 11.7 2.0
No high school diploma or GED 0.8 4.9 0.0
High school diploma or GED 6.3 14.6 6.0
College 87.8 68.9 92.0
Income ($) %* Less than $50,000 17.5 39.0 38.8
$50,001 - $100,000 34.1 28.0 24.5
$100,001 - $200,000 27.1 17.0 28.6
Greater than $200,000 12.5 3.0 4.1
Duration in the USA
(years) (mean)
22.0 19.8 18.5
Notes: * Chi-square = 0.01 at 8 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.
** ANOVA = (2,809) Difference significant at the 5% confidence level.
1. This group is a sub-sample of the survey population. Latinos could choose either black or white as race.

Table 2 – Comparison of visitors’ socio-demographic differences by race

20 years. Most visitors spoke English at home (86.5%), although other commonly
spoken languages included Spanish (7.8%), Farsi (1.8%) and French. While many
other languages were reported, these are statistically insignificant.
Patterns of visitation
Only thirteen percent of survey respondents were first time visitors to the park, but
people of color were disproportionately represented among first time visitors. The
median time spent on trails was 2 hours and visitors on average visited the park four
times a month. The most popular time of day for visiting was the morning (63.8%);
the most popular day of the week was a weekend day (72.5%), and the most
frequently reported seasons for visiting were summer (71%) and spring (62.6%).
47

However, significant differences existed in visitation patterns among the three ethno-
racial groups (see table 3).

47
These numbers add up to more than 100% because respondents could check more than one season.

111
Variable White Latino Asian Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Return visitor 594 88.9 78 76.5 47 82.5 13 12.4 788 87.0
Normal trail visited* 442 72.9 55 62.5 29 58.0 63 61.3 576 71.1

Time of day visiting
morning 426 63.4 63 61.2 39 67.2 69 65.7 582 63.8
afternoon 240 35.7 35 24.0 21 36.2 35 33.3 317 34.8
evening 143 21.3 23 22.3 11 19.0 19 18.1 192 21.1

Day of week visiting
weekdays* 187 27.8 16 15.5 6 10.3 29 27.6 234 25.7
weekends 488 72.6 68 66.0 47 81.0 77 73.3 661 72.5

Season most often visiting
spring 440 65.5 48 46.6 30 51.7 68 64.8 571 62.2
summer 486 72.3 70 68.0 38 65.5 80 76.2 655 71.8
fall* 391 58.2 38 36.9 23 39.7 64 61.0 506 55.5
winter 369 54.9 38 36.9 19 32.8 57 54.2 473 51.9

Number of visits per year
mean 7.15 6.16 4.72 7.66 7.00

Group size*
alone 203 30.3 24 23.3 11 19.0 35 33.7 266 29.3
family 171 25.5 31 30.1 14 24.1 22 21.2 227 25.0
friends 234 34.9 31 30.1 22 37.9 31 29.8 314 34.6
family and friends 34 5.1 13 12.6 7 12.1 11 10.6 62 6.8
religious group 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 1 0.1
youth club 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.7 4 3.8 5 0.6
educational 6 0.9 0 0.0 1 1.7 0 0.0 7 0.8
other organization 21 3.1 4 3.9 1 1.7 0 0.0 25 2.8
other 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1

Travel mode
car, truck, SUV, van 597 88.8 95 92.2 57 98.3 93 88.6 819 89.8
public transportation 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
group transportation 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
motorcycle / scooter 4 0.6 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.4
bicycle 22 3.3 5 4.9 1 1.7 0 0.0 33 3.6
walk / jog 38 5.7 2 1.9 0 0.0 5 4.8 44 4.8
ride horse 8 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 9 1.0
other 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.2

Mean travel time (minutes)** 25.9 34.8 38.6 27.1 27.9
Notes: *Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.
**ANOVA = 0.05 Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 3 – Patterns of visitation

112
There were significant differences in patterns of park visitation among the
three groups. Latinos and Asians were both less likely to visit the park on weekdays -
a difference most pronounced among Asian visitors. Group size also varied
significantly among the three ethno-racial groups. Asians were significantly more
likely to visit the park with friends whereas Latino visitors were significantly more
likely to visit with their families or with friends. Whites were significantly more
likely to visit by themselves or with friends (see table 3) and spent significantly less
time traveling to the park - about 10 minutes less than Latinos or Asians, because
they lived nearby (see figures 2 and 3). Interestingly, Whites also exhibited a degree
of territoriality, being significantly more likely to return to the same trail when they
visited the park. Not surprisingly, Whites were significantly more likely to jog to the
park and were more likely than other two groups to visit the park in winter.
Latinos were significantly less likely to be return visitors, as a higher
proportion of Latinos were visiting the park for the first time. Latinos were less
likely to visit in the spring. Latinos were also more likely to have cycled to the park.
Asians made fewer visits per year, and were more likely to arrive by car –
presumably related to the distance they lived from the park. A higher proportion of
Asians also preferred to visit the park in the morning.
There were no significant variations among the dominant ethno-racial groups
in the most common reasons for visiting the national park. In descending order they
were - being outdoors, exercising, enjoying fresh air and appreciating the scenery
(see table 4). The least likely reasons for visiting the park were - undertaking

113
research and attending an organized event. A significantly greater proportion of
White visitors (almost 10% more) went to the national park to experience nature.
Whites were also more likely to go to the park for solitude, to see wildlife or enjoy
scenery. Asians were more likely to visit the park for adventure sport. Asians and
Latinos were less likely to visit the park to walk a pet, whereas Whites were less
likely to go to the park to educate their children about nature. Also, a substantially
smaller proportion of Latinos went to the park to exercise or to escape the city.
I also surveyed visitors about why they would visit a local park instead of the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The most frequently reported
reasons - in rank order - were limited time, easier access different recreation
opportunities, and ease of taking children (see table 5).

Reason White Latino Asian Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
exercise 585 87.1 69 67.3 51 87.9 87 82.9 771 84.5
be outdoors 604 89.9 87 84.6 50 86.2 91 86.7 805 88.3
enjoy quiet 458 68.2 60 57.6 38 65.8 66 62.9 603 66.1
fresh air 500 74.4 70 67.3 38 65.5 78 74.3 669 73.4
see wildflowers 264 39.3 29 26.9 15 25.9 40 38.1 342 37.5
see wildlife 335 49.9 39 37.5 21 36.2 46 43.8 430 47.1
enjoy scenery 514 76.5 65 62.5 39 67.2 73 69.5 673 73.8
escape city 379 56.4 48 46.1 32 55.2 47 44.4 493 54.1
experience nature* 360 53.6 46 44.2 27 46.6 44 41.9 465 51.0
solitude 289 43.0 32 30.7 18 31.0 39 37.1 366 40.1
attend event 41 6.1 7 6.7 3 5.2 2 1.9 50 5.5
undertake research 5 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.5
adventure sports 121 18.0 21 20.1 16 27.6 15 14.3 166 18.2
be with pet 98 14.6 9 8.6 6 10.3 16 15.2 126 13.8
socializing 248 36.9 36 33.6 24 41.4 30 28.6 329 36.1
educate children 48 7.1 13 12.5 7 12.1 9 8.6 71 7.8
other 19 2.8 2 3.8 1 1.7 1 1.0 23 2.5
Notes: *Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 4 – Reason for visiting the Santa Monica Mountains

114
Interestingly, for Latino visitors, ease of taking children was a significant reason for
visiting a local park. Also, a higher proportion of Whites stated that they did not visit
local parks – some indicating that the national park in fact served as their local park.
Neither community gardening nor visiting neighborhood friends were cited as
reasons for visiting a neighborhood park.
There were however, important differences between the groups. Although a
slightly lower proportion of Asian visitors stated that they did not use local parks, a
significantly higher proportion of Asian visitors identified limited time as a reason
for visiting their local neighborhood park instead of the Santa Monica Mountains.

Activity White Latino Asian Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
limited time* 332 49.4 43 43.2 39 67.2 46 43.8 445 48.8
easier access* 212 31.5 42 40.3 28 48.3 35 33.3 307 33.7
different recreation opportunities 181 26.9 22 21.1 12 20.7 30 28.6 242 26.5
community gardening 10 1.5 4 3.8 1 1.7 2 1.9 16 1.8
group recreation opportunities 54 8.0 15 14.4 4 6.9 4 3.8 73 8.0
see neighborhood friends 50 7.4 9 8.6 3 5.2 11 10.5 71 7.8
easier to take children* 85 12.6 26 25.0 7 12.1 9 8.6 122 13.4
other 26 3.9 4 3.9 0 0.0 2 1.9 111 3.6
not applicable / don’t visit 87 12.9 10 9.7 3 5.2 12 11.4 33 12.2
Notes: *Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 df. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 5 - Reason for visiting a local park instead of the SMMNRA

When travel time is considered, it is obvious that Asians traveled further to
visit the park (see table 3). Asian visitors also cited easier access as a reason for
visiting their local park. It is likely that travel distance is related to this reason. A
significantly higher proportion of Latino visitors stated that it was easier to take their

115
children to local parks, that the parks had different recreation opportunities, and that
those parks catered to group recreation.
Activities of trail users
Visitors to trails within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
participated in a wide variety of activities (see table 6). The six most prevalent were
hiking (77.3%), sightseeing (55%), mountain-biking (26.3%), jogging (21.9%) and
bird-watching and picnicking (about 16%). When asked to identify only the principal
activity engaged in during their visit from a list of fifteen alternatives, hiking
(49.5%), mountain biking (18.7%), jogging (8.2%), sightseeing (6.1%) and dog-
walking (4.7%) were reported as the dominant activities.

Activity White
(n=672 )
Latino
(n=103)
Asian
(n=58)
Other
(n=105)
Total
(n=912)
n % n % n % n % n %
hiking 513 76.3 76 73.8 44 75.9 89 84.8 705 77.3
mountain biking 175 26.0 29 28.2 22 37.9 25 23.8 240 26.3
jogging 135 20.1 30 29.1 12 20.7 29 27.8 200 21.9
sightseeing 368 54.8 58 56.3 34 58.6 57 54.3 502 55.0
dog walking* 93 13.8 13 12.5 5 8.6 28 26.7 136 14.9
horse riding 39 5.8 2 1.9 0 0 7 6.7 46 5.0
picnicking* 93 13.8 37 35.9 6 10.3 18 17.1 147 16.1
camping* 38 5.7 19 18.4 12 20.7 14 13.3 78 8.6
rock climbing 45 6.7 17 16.3 5 8.6 10 9.5 74 8.1
bird watching 107 15.9 17 16.3 7 12.1 20 19.0 146 16.0
photography 93 13.8 9 8.7 8 13.8 12 11.4 120 13.2
swimming* 25 3.7 8 7.8 3 5.2 10 9.5 43 4.7
sunbathing 37 5.5 10 9.7 1 1.7 6 5.7 50 5.5
painting / crafts 9 1.3 3 2.8 1 1.7 3 2.9 15 1.6
other 50 8.3 5 4.9 3 5.2 8 7.6 71 7.8
Notes: Percentages add up to more than 100 as visitors could select multiple activities.
*Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 6 – Activities of trail users

116
All three ethno-racial groups listed hiking and sightseeing as the dominant
activities. Latinos listed picnicking as the third most prevalent activity whilst Whites
and Asians identified mountain biking. All three groups indicated jogging as the
fourth most prevalent activity. The least preferred activities were horse riding for
Latinos and Asians and painting / crafts for Whites.

Activity and reason White Latino Asian Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Problem activities
mountain biking 166 24.7 15 14.6 12 20.7 23 21.9 210 23.1
horse riding* 94 14.0 15 14.6 14 24.1 9 8.6 128 14.0
hiking 20 2.9 2 1.9 2 3.4 0 0.0 23 2.6
running / jogging 15 2.2 3 2.9 0 0.0 1 1.0 19 2.1
picnicking 43 6.3 9 8.7 4 6.9 6 5.7 59 6.4
dog walking 123 18.3 17 16.5 17 29.3 22 21.0 174 19.1
other 41 6.1 3 2.9 2 3.4 3 2.9 53 5.8

Reasons why
damage plants 123 18.3 25 24.0 16 27.6 20 19.0 172 18.9
rude behavior 188 28.0 22 21.1 19 32.8 29 27.4 247 27.1
scare wildlife 119 17.7 16 15.3 10 17.2 24 22.9 162 17.8
startle people 143 21.3 16 15.3 13 22.4 21 20.0 187 20.5
noisy* 109 16.2 16 15.3 15 25.9 10 9.5 140 15.4
litter 145 21.6 20 19.2 17 29.3 23 21.9 194 21.3
scare horses 39 5.8 2 1.9 3 5.2 11 10.5 54 5.9
animal waste* 157 23.4 25 24.0 25 43.1 23 21.9 224 24.6
collision / injury 134 19.9 13 12.5 11 19.0 24 22.9 177 19.4
off leash dogs 12 1.8 1 1.0 0 0.0 2 1.9 15 1.6
other 27 4.0 2 1.9 0 0.0 6 5.7 33 3.6
Notes: *Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.
Problem activities are those which users rated as having somewhat or strongly negative impacts

Table 7 – User conflict and problem activities

There were statistical differences in the activities preferred by Latinos,
Asians and Whites. Significantly more Latinos went for a swim and a picnic during

117
their visit to the park and significantly fewer Whites went camping or swimming.
Dog walking was more prevalent among ‘other’ ethno-racial groups. Horse-riding
was predominantly a White activity. Picnicking, swimming, sunbathing and rock
climbing were predominantly Latino activities, whereas mountain biking was
predominantly an Asian activity. A significantly higher proportion of Latinos were
picnickers than were visitors from other ethno-racial groups.
Problem activities and user conflict
The most often cited problem activities were mountain biking, dog walking and
horse - riding, across all three ethno-racial groups (see table 7). A significantly
higher number of Asian visitors identified horse-riding as a problem activity. A
smaller proportion of Latinos saw mountain biking as a problem. The least
problematic activities were running and hiking. This is not surprising, since the
majority of respondents participated in hiking. The issues that were associated with
problem activities were rudeness, litter and animal waste. Asians visitors were more
likely to cite damage to plants, rude behavior and litter as problems within the park,
and were significantly more likely to cite noise and animal waste as issues. The least
problematic activities were off leash dogs and users scaring horses.
Sources of information
Visitors reported that the internet, organized groups and ranger led walks were not
important sources of information, regardless of ethno-racial background (see table

118
8).
48
There were significant differences among the three ethno-racial groups
regarding their most important sources of information about nature in the park (table
8). White visitors were significantly more likely to derive their nature information
from living in the area. Personal observation, books and previous visits were other
common sources of information for White visitors.

Information source White Latino Asian Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
ranger led walks 71 10.6 8 7.6 6 10.3 8 7.6 89 9.8
school 132 19.6 18 17.3 16 27.6 21 20.0 181 19.8
park brochures 222 33.0 30 28.8 23 39.7 29 27.6 292 32.0
park signs 224 33.3 36 34.6 21 36.2 36 34.3 306 33.6
personal observation 332 49.4 33 31.7 23 39.7 47 44.8 420 46.1
books 278 41.4 33 31.7 28 48.3 43 41.0 368 40.4
magazines* 181 26.9 24 23.0 31 53.4 31 29.5 257 28.2
television 140 20.8 22 21.1 14 24.1 24 22.9 195 21.4
previous visits 259 38.5 24 23.3 19 32.8 33 31.4 326 35.7
family / friends 216 32.1 37 34.6 19 32.8 40 38.1 301 33.0
live in area* 231 34.4 16 15.3 12 20.7 30 28.6 279 30.6
organized groups 42 6.3 9 7.6 3 5.2 10 9.5 61 6.7
internet 11 1.6 1 1.0 3 5.2 1 1.0 15 1.6
other 11 1.6 1 1.0 1 1.7 3 2.9 17 1.9
Notes: *Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 8 – Sources of information about park flora and fauna

Significantly more Asian visitors depended on magazines for nature
information. Asian visitors were also more likely to rely on personal observation and
park brochures. Latinos were significantly less likely to derive nature information
from living in the area. They were also much less likely to rely on books or previous

48
Because the internet was not an option on the survey instrument and instead was ‘written in’ by
respondents, it seems likely that respondents would have cited the internet more often had they been
given the opportunity to do so.

119
visits. For Latino respondents, park signs, family and friends, and personal
observation were important sources of information.
Attitudes towards the park
The survey included a ‘forced choice’ question about attitudes that visitors held
towards protection of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. There
were few differences between the three ethno-racial groups regarding this question
(table 9). All three groups demonstrated a high degree of ecocentricism - favoring
use of the park for habitat preservation over recreational functions (Merchant, 1996).
Reason to protect White Latino Asian Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
provide recreation 151 22.5 27 26.2 11 19.0 17 16.2 201 22.0
provide habitat 361 53.7 55 53.4 30 51.7 53 50.5 485 53.2
both 141 21.0 18 17.5 13 22.4 31 29.5 197 21.6
no opinion* 13 1.9 3 2.8 4 6.9 4 3.8 23 2.5
other 5 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.5
Notes: *Chi-square = 0.05 at 3 d.f. Difference significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 9 – Attitudes towards the Santa Monica Mountains

Interestingly, a significantly higher proportion of Asian visitors stated that they had
no opinion about the question. A slightly higher proportion of Latino visitors favored
the use of the park for recreation and a slightly lower proportion favored using the
park for both recreation and habitat functions.

120
Discussion
My findings corroborate some of the hypotheses that leisure researchers have
postulated to account for ethno-racial differences in park utilization. But they also
suggest that other factors may be responsible for observed differences in national
park visitation and use. For example, the three ethno-racial groups showed no
statistically significant differences in the frequency of visitation, mode of travel to
the park, or in attitudes towards the park. This is contrary to the ethnicity and
assimilation / acculturation hypotheses, wherein people of color would be expected
to vary significantly from White visitors across these variables.
However, I found some evidence to support the marginality and ethnicity
hypotheses. Although there were no significant differences in education attainment
or the level of home ownership of the three groups, Whites earned significantly
higher incomes than visitors of color. But the higher income of Whites may simply
be an artifact of age, as Latinos and Asians were significantly younger than their
White counterparts. People of color were also significantly more likely to travel
further to visit the park, suggesting socio-economic differences in residential location
(Hanink and White 1999).
There were significant differences between group sizes among Whites and
people of color, lending support to the ethnicity hypothesis. People of color were
significantly more likely than Whites to visit in a group (with family, friends or a
combination of the two). Similar results have been found for regional and local park

121
visitation (Baas et al. 1993; Ewert et al. 1993; Floyd 1999; Floyd 2001; Floyd et al.
1993; Floyd and Shinew 1999; Tierney et al. 2001; Washburn 1978; West 1993).
Although only one statistically significant variation occurred in reasons for visiting
the park across the three ethno-racial groups - where significantly more Whites came
to experience nature - there were greater variations in reasons for visiting a local
park.
There were also statistically significant variations between the three groups in
the activities they undertook within the national park. Asians were significantly less
likely to walk a dog, Latinos were significantly more likely to have a picnic, and
Whites were significantly less likely to be camping or swimming. Once again,
differences in camping and dog-walking may be a function of distance, rather than
ethno-racial preferences. Evidence also suggests that Asians did not favor horse-
riding, as significantly more Asians identified it as a problem activity and they were
significantly more likely to complain about animal wastes.
I did not find evidence to support the discrimination hypothesis. None of the
groups reported incidents of racial discrimination as a barrier to access. Nor did I
find evidence to support the assimilation / acculturation hypothesis. There were no
significant differences in mean residence times among visitors of color.
Nonetheless, my results do shed light on the ways that urban national parks
might function to discourage visitation by people of color. My findings show that
park visitors were relatively affluent and people of color traveled significantly
further than Whites to visit the park. People of color also visited in significantly

122
lower numbers relative to their share of the park catchment population. The park
does not seem to function as was originally intended, that is to bring nature within
reach of people of color and the urban poor. On the contrary, the park seems to play
a more prominent role as a neighborhood park for residents of affluent, White
communities situated nearby. My GIS analysis shows that the neighborhoods
surrounding the park are predominantly White (figure 11). Both Rishbeth (2001) and
Ravenscroft and Markwell (2000) have reported similar findings in their studies of
regional parks.

Figure 11 – Percent White population in neighborhoods surrounding the park

123
Supporting this perspective is the fact that the trails favored by Latino visitors
(figure 12) are classified by the National Park Service as destination trails, whereas
the trails preferred by Whites are classified as neighborhood trails. While it is
possible that the increased distances that Latinos traveled to reach the park meant
that they had less time to familiarize themselves with all park trails, it is also evident
that few neighborhood access points are adequately signposted, perhaps suggesting
to people of color that such neighborhood trails are ‘off limits’. It is possible that

Figure 12 – Percent Latino population in neighborhoods surrounding the park

124
people of color could also perceive the character of the neighborhoods surrounding
the park as a barrier to access – a topic I return to in the next chapter.
My findings also show that there are significant differences in the sources of
information that the dominant ethno-racial groups relied upon to learn about the
park. This suggests that institutional discrimination could be at work. For example,
all the park signs are written only in English (see figures 13 & 14). An examination
of the National Park Service webpage for the park also shows that only a fraction of
the park information is available in Spanish, and none of it is available in Mandarin,
Cantonese, Japanese, Korean or Farsi – all languages spoken by park visitors.

Figure 13 and Figure 14 – English-language signs within the national park

125
This is not a trivial issue, since non-English speakers may thus be unable to
heed warnings about hazards within the park, such as the presence of rattlesnakes or
flash floods. It could also potentially affect the ability of people of color to fully
enjoy the park, and may result in the perception of being unsafe or worse still -
unwelcome.
Conclusion
In this chapter I tested the assumptions of leisure researchers about how and why
people use parks. I focused upon race and ethnicity, and discussed the environmental
justice and public health implications of inequitable access to parks. My research
sought to understand if there were ethno-racial differences in the ways park visitors
utilized the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. I wanted to ascertain
if observed differences were attributable to variations in socio-demographic
characteristics, park accessibility, cultural preferences, or visitors’ attitudes towards
the park.
My research has shown that people of color use the park in far lower numbers
than Whites. But, I also found that there was little ethno-racial variation in patterns
of use, environmental attitudes, and experiences of user conflict. These findings
challenge leisure studies theories that account for ethno-racial variations in park use
as a function of cultural values. What my results do show is that the frequency of
park visits, the distances traveled to reach the park and the percentage of people of
color using the park vary substantially. This suggests that park use may be a function

126
of socio-spatial processes, the same processes that have thus far been underplayed by
leisure researchers (Payne et al. 2002).
What I have sought to highlight in this chapter is that although the SMMNRA
was created to partly assuage the needs of inner city communities for open space – a
pressing environmental justice issue for many communities of color – the park has
ended up catering to a predominantly White clientele. It is possible that geographic
variables such as residential location, park distribution and facility provision may
account for this situation. Geographic variables may thus be stronger correlates of
park use than has previously been thought. In the next chapter I test this supposition
by examining how Latino non-park users perceive the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area. I suggest that Latinos may regard the park as a landscape
that (re)produces racial dynamics inherent in broader American society, and that this
perception influences decisions not to visit the park.

127
Chapter 4 If you build it, will they come?
Latino non-use of the SMMNRA

Introduction
In the previous chapter I discussed how the federal government created the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area partly to bring the national park
experience to Los Angeles’ impoverished and socially disadvantaged residents. What
I found in my study of park visitation was that people of color were comparatively
poorly represented among park users. The crucial question then, is why?
In this chapter I consider how geographic factors including commuting
distance (residential location), park distribution (i.e. where parks are located), the
perceptions of potential users (e.g. how they view park users, activities and
facilities), and inadequate information (e.g. lack of Spanish-language signage) could
be responsible. I investigate how these factors affect Latino non-users of the park. Is
it plausible that Latinos live further away from the park and prefer to use
greenspaces that are closer to home; that Latinos feel unwelcome in the park space or
feel that they do not belong there and thus avoid it; or that Latinos simply do not
know the park exists and hence cannot use it?
There are several reasons why I have focused on Latinos. First, Latinos are
the fastest growing ethno-racial group in the United States; they are now the
numerically dominant ethno-racial group in Los Angeles (Allen and Turner 2003;

128
McChesney et al. 2005; Sasidharan et al. 2005). Second, Latinos were the most
numerous non-White group using the park. Third, empirical research has shown that
although many Latinos express a desire to visit parks – especially nature parks and
open space at the urban-wildlands interface - they may face unique constraints
(Floyd et al. 1993; Gobster 2002; Ho et al. 2005; Hutchison 1987; Tierney et al.
1998; Tinsley et al. 2002). Finally, Latinos are especially at risk of obesity and
associated diseases because they have the highest rates of physical inactivity among
any ethno-racial group (Voorhees and Rohm Young 2003). Their ability to access
urban greenspaces for recreation is thus an important environmental justice and
public health concern.
I begin the chapter by concisely reviewing the literature on ‘non-use’ of parks
and on constraints to park visitation. I then discuss my research methods, data
analysis and findings. I conclude by identifying some strategies that park managers
might follow to improve Latino access to - and use of - the national park. I want to
stress from the beginning that this study is exploratory in nature. As such, it does not
purport to represent the views of all Latinos in Los Angeles but rather aims to
highlight key issues that may underpin the non-use of parks by people of color.
Factors underpinning non-use of parks
Although park-providers like the National Park Service have long believed that ‘if
you build it, they will come’, this time-worn adage may not be true (McKenna 2002:
896). Many people do not use parks, for a variety of reasons (Gold 1977). Some of

129
these reasons seem obvious - including lack of money, insufficient time, travel
distance and inadequate park space. Others are less apparent - such as racial
discrimination, park programming (or lack thereof), or the perception that some
parks may be unwelcoming or unsafe. Researchers theorize that four ‘classes of
factors’ or types of constraint are correlates of non-use of recreational facilities like
parks (Hultsman 1995; Jackson 1997; Jackson and Witt 1994).
49
These are (i)
personal / internal constraints (e.g. fear of crime, disability, motivation, interest,
depression); (ii) social constraints (e.g. lack of companions, family responsibilities);
(iii) structural constraints (e.g. time, money, poor transportation); and (iv)
institutional constraints (e.g. user fees, park programs) (Burns and Graefe 2007;
Crompton and Kim 2004; Henderson and Bialeschki 2005; Jackson 1993).
50

Leisure researchers, who dominate the non-use literature, have focused their
attention on personal, social and structural constraints. They have found that people
who are less likely to visit parks include the aged, the poor, busy people, the socially
isolated, women, people of color, people who lack knowledge about park facilities or
perceive parks to be dangerous, and people who have grown up without access to
nature (Arab-Moghaddam et al. 2007; Burns and Graefe 2007; Cranz 1980; Floyd
1999; Floyd et al. 1993; Ho et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 1998; Kornblum 1983; Perez-
Verdin et al. 2004; Philipp 1999; Scott and Munson 1994; Stanfield et al. 2005;
Tierney et al. 1998; Troped et al. 2005; West 1989).

49
See Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997a, b) for a critique and Raymore (2002) for an alternative
‘facilitators’ approach.
50
Shaw et al. (op. cit.) also discern between reported constraints and perceived constraints.

130
Some researchers have also found that health-related factors (e.g. injury,
disease, mental disability) and motivational and psychological factors (e.g. self
discipline, interest, attitudes and support of family and friends) can impact people’s
ability to visit and use parks (Parks et al. 2003). For instance, people who have an
injury or suffer from physical or mental disability are less likely to visit parks
(Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005; Bird and Fremont 1991; Frumkin 2005; Maller et al.
2005; Nies 1999; Shinew et al. 2004). People who report lower-levels of self
discipline, a lack of support from family and friends and who are not interested in
parks will likewise be disinclined to visit and use parks (Hung and Crompton 2006;
Lee et al. 2002; Shinew et al. 2004).
Institutional or management factors may also play a role. For example a
mismatch between the ethno-racial characteristics of park staff and potential visitors;
a philosophy of park management that alienates certain groups; inadequate funding
for park programs; and Anglo-normative park programming may all result in lower
levels of park visitation (Floyd 1999; Floyd 2001; Gold 1978; Loukaitou-Sideris
1995; Roberts and Rodriguez 2001). Park rules like ‘soccer prohibited’ can
significantly impact how people perceive and use parks - particularly people of color
- and may influence their choices not to visit certain parks (Floyd 1999; Floyd 2001;
Henderson and Bialeschki 2005; McChesney et al. 2005; Woolley 2006). And user
fees may disproportionately impact low income and socially disadvantaged groups
(More and Stevens 2000; More 1999; More 2002; Schwartz and Lin 2006; Scott and
Munson 1994).

131
Unfortunately, researchers have seldom acknowledged the role that spatial
factors may play in the non-use of parks - e.g. distance from parks, travel costs,
spatial distribution of greenspace and intervening opportunities (Payne et al. 2002;
Scott and Munson 1994 are notable exceptions). For instance, few researchers have
investigated how the characteristics of park spaces - e.g. park aesthetics, presence of
security, lighting, signage, landscaping, park facilities and crowding - might limit or
prevent utilization (Burger 2003; Burgess et al. 1988; Crewe 2001; Finney and
Rishbeth 2006; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Shinew et al. 2004). Nor have researchers
effectively evaluated how travel distance and travel costs and inadequate information
about parks might impact park visitation. Finally, researchers have seldom
considered how potential visitors perceptions of park spaces and the people who use
them might also affect people’s park utilization choices.
Spatial constraints to park visitation
The characteristics of park spaces may impact how people use them. For example,
substandard park equipment, a lack of facilities and services, a sense of ‘artificiality’
in park design and monotonous park environments potentially lead to lower levels of
park use (Burgess et al. 1988; Kong et al. 1999; Yuen 1996b). Other characteristics
of park spaces with the potential to deter utilization include dirty or unhygienic
bathrooms, damaged play equipment and facilities (e.g. faulty water fountains and
broken light fixtures), dead or overgrown vegetation, broken glass, litter and dog
droppings (Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005; Brownlow 2005; Brownlow 2006; Burgess et
al. 1988; Gobster 1998; Gold 1986; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002). Park

132
visitation may also be curtailed where potential visitors lack information about the
parks within their neighborhoods and the facilities they contain (Hayward 1989;
Spotts and Stynes 1985; Stynes et al. 1985).
Distance to parks is a probable spatial constraint too (Burgess et al. 1988),
especially for people with limited personal mobility due to physical disability or lack
of access to public transportation (Burns and Graefe 2007; Scott and Munson 1994).
Physical barriers like freeways and rail lines may constrain even able-bodied visitors
– particularly where crossings for pedestrians are limited (Nicholls 2001; Talen
1998; Talen and Anselin 1998). Intervening opportunities may likewise limit park
visitation because alternative recreational venues such as cinemas, shopping malls
and golf courses may function as ‘competing destinations’ (Smith 1980; Stouffer
1940). And travel costs may also play a role, because parks are rarely distributed
evenly across urban landscapes (Betz et al. 2003; Fesenmaier and Lieber 1985;
Hanink and White 1999; Henderson and Wall 1979; Kerkvliet and Nowell 1999;
Lindsey et al. 2001; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002; Mitchell and Lovingood
1976; Nicholls 2001; Smoyer-Tomic et al. 2004; Talen and Anselin 1998). People
will visit and use parks that are more accessible.
Park supply is a related, though rarely discussed, spatial constraint.
Communities of color may suffer from disproportionately poor access to parks and
other urban greenspaces (Coen and Ross 2006; Floyd and Johnson 2002; Frumkin
2005; Heynen 2003; Koehler and Wrightson 1987; Lindsey et al. 2001; Loukaitou-
Sideris and Stieglitz 2002; Smoyer-Tomic et al. 2004; Taylor et al. 2006; Timperio et

133
al. 2007). Where parks are located within these communities, they tend to have sub-
standard facilities or do not offer the types of recreational experiences (e.g. hiking,
camping) that can be found in larger regional parks on the city’s outskirts
(Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and Stieglitz 2002; Sister et al. 2007; see
also West 1989). Visiting parks in other neighborhoods may not be an option
because those parks may be regarded as the territory of other people - a situation that
may be especially pronounced for parks located in White, affluent neighborhoods
(Hester Jr. et al. 1999; Kornblum 1983; Lee 1972; Ravenscroft and Markwell 2000;
Rishbeth 2001).
Finally, how potential visitors perceive a park, the people who use that park,
and the activities they undertake, will likely affect their park utilization choices. For
example, some park users may be associated with deviance, criminality, or incivility
– i.e. racism, alcohol consumption, drug use, and sexual activities (Burgess et al.
1988; Fletcher 1983; Gold 1977; Hayward 1989; Hung and Crompton 2006; Lee
1972; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995; Luymes and Tamminga 1995; Madge 1997; Niepoth
1973; Westover 1985; Woolley 2006). Even socially accepted park activities like
cycling or dog-walking can negatively impact some users. Speeding cyclists for
instance can discourage women from visiting parks and unleashed dogs may frighten
children and repel people who fear dogs (Burgess 1996; Burgess et al. 1988; Garrard
2003; Krenichyn 2006; Nast 2006; Sasidharan et al. 2005; Whitzman 2002).
The perceived or actual absence of safety or security may likewise discourage
potential users (Fletcher 1983), particularly those people who perceive that parks are

134
spaces where sexual attack, unprovoked violence and racial harassment are
commonplace (Burgess 1996; Burgess et al. 1988; Koskela 1999; Madge 1997; Nast
2006; Westover 1985; Whitzman 2002; Yuen 1996b). And the character of
neighborhoods and land uses surrounding parks may similarly constrain use,
especially where potential visitors perceive them to be unwelcoming or unsafe
(Gobster 1998; Schroeder 1982). Just the idea of having to traverse such spaces to
visit a park may be enough to discourage some visitors (Ravenscroft and Markwell
2000; Rishbeth 2001; West 1989; West 1993).
Methods
Several related questions have motivated my research. Specifically, is Latino
utilization of the national park comparatively low because Latinos do not enjoy
wildland greenspaces and the activities they foster? Low visitation could reflect
Latino preferences for more developed park landscapes that support active
recreation. Or is comparatively lower utilization due to Latino attitudes to nature?
Perhaps Latinos are less concerned about native plants and local wildlife than other
ethno-racial groups, and thus are not attracted to nature parks like the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area. Or does low visitation reflect spatial
constraints or barriers to use?
Research design
Most studies investigating the non-use of parks have employed quantitative
techniques such as telephone surveys (e.g. Burns and Graefe 2007; Payne et al. 2002;

135
Scott and Munson 1994; Tierney et al. 2001; West 1989) and face-to-face or mail-
back surveys (e.g. Arab-Moghaddam et al. 2007; Ho et al. 2005; Hung and
Crompton 2006; Johnson et al. 1998; e.g. Madge 1997; Shores and Scott 2007;
Troped et al. 2005). But some studies have used qualitative techniques such as in-
depth interviews (Burgess et al. 1988; Ho et al. 2005; Koskela 1999; Krenichyn
2006) and focus groups (Burgess 1996; Burgess et al. 1988; Gearin and Kahle 2006;
Zhang and Gobster 1998). Typically consisting of a small number of people - usually
between 8 and 12 individuals - who gather together to discuss questions about the
research topic, focus groups are an effective technique for investigating the non-use
of parks for several reasons.
Focus groups are cost and time effective, they foster interactive research, and
they enable researchers to investigate sensitive issues (Cameron 2005; Goss 1996;
Holbrook 1996; Morgan and Krueger 1993). They also furnish contextually rich,
descriptive data (Krueger 1994: 19) thus enabling the researcher to draw upon
respondent’s own words when reporting results (Cameron 2005; Krueger 1994;
Morgan and Krueger 1993; Stewart and Shamdasani 1990). Importantly, as Wolff et
al. (1993: 120) have suggested, focus groups enable researchers to access ‘hard to
reach populations’.
Because this technique fosters a more intimate and convivial research
environment and, to paraphrase Wilkinson (1998), shifts the locus of power away
from the researcher to the participants, it opens up greater possibilities for
participants to engage with a topic and to share their life experiences, attitudes,

136
opinions, feelings, values, perceptions, behaviors, and ‘ways of seeing’ the world
(Holbrook, 1996; Goss, 1996; Krueger, 1994; Zeigler, 1996). This is important
because sensitive topics such as racism, sexism, violence, etc. can elicit strong
feelings. Participants may feel more comfortable about expressing their views in
front of others who share a similar background and / or life experiences (Cameron
2005; Zeller 1993).
51
The focus group technique thus provided us with important
benefits in investigating how park access impacts specific racial formations in Los
Angeles, benefits that were not afforded by other techniques.
Focus group recruitment
I wanted to recruit Latino participants who spoke English, were between the ages of
21 and 65 and who were non-users of the national park.
52
Because demographic
variables such as age, sex, race, ethnicity and income can influence research results, I
sought to hold focus groups with participants from similar backgrounds (Stewart and
Shamdasani 1990).
53
I identified potential participants through Internet searches,
web-based bulletin board postings, and telephone calls to organizations involved in

51
I recognize that culturally or racially heterogeneous groups can create tensions between participants
or between participants and a moderator, particularly with regard to sensitive research topics like race
/ ethnicity (see Chiu and Knight, 1999). I also acknowledge that there can be benefits to having a
moderator who differs from participants in race / ethnicity, because it enables the moderator to ask
naive questions and to question ‘taken for granted’ viewpoints (Dreachslin, 1998; Morgan, 1997;
Morgan and Krueger, 1993). By using co-moderators to run the sessions I feel that such tensions in
our groups were minimized.
52
Ultimately, focus group participants deviated in some ways from our prerequisites. Although there
was a broad age-range between participants, sex, income and education were more homogeneous.
53
Although I recognized that variations in income, occupation and education could influence our
findings, I intended to hold mixed sex groups because I was constrained by time and funding and I
wanted to maximize the range of issues that participants might raise.

137
community park development.
54
Initial recruitment proved difficult for a variety of
reasons, so I directly contacted two community groups to undertake recruitment on
my behalf: the Healthy Homes Collaborative in the Pico-Union / Wilshire district of
Los Angeles and Pacoima Beautiful in the San Fernando Valley. Both of these
community groups responded to my request for expressions of interest, and they
gave me access to urban and suburban Latino participants. The Healthy Homes
Collaborative is a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting migrant women find
jobs and Pacoima Beautiful is a neighborhood improvement organization dedicated
to ameliorating urban blight, lowering the incidence of neighborhood incivility and
developing strategies to green the urban environment.
The Healthy Homes Collaborative recruited nine monolingual Spanish-
speaking female domestic workers. These women cleaned houses near the national
park. Pacoima Beautiful recruited fourteen residents from the San Fernando Valley –
twelve females and two males, four of whom were Spanish-only speakers. In
comparison to park visitors, focus group participants were generally low-income
earners (US$ 25,000 or less), were not college educated, had children under 18 living
at home, lived in two-parent households and mostly rented (see table 10).
The viewpoints discussed in this chapter are therefore mainly those of lower-income
Latinas - a departure from the intended sample population, but nonetheless a group
that is poorly represented in the literature on park use.

54
The protocol for the study was developed in consultation with staff from the Center for Sustainable
Cities and was reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB).

138
Demographic characteristic 2002 trail survey
(n=104)
Focus groups
(n=23)
Sex n % n %
Females 40 38.4 21 91
Males 64 61.5 2 9

Median age 35.7 37.3

Income
>$25k 4 3.9 10 45.4
$25k-50k 35 34.6 12 54.5
$50k-75k 15 13.8 - -
$75k-100k 16 14.8 - -
$100k-125k 8 7.9 - -
$125k-150k 3 2.9 - -
$150k-175k 3 2.9 - -
$175k-200k 3 2.9 - -
<$200k 3 2.9 - -
Do not wish to answer 14 12.8 1 4.3

Household type
Single 32 30.6 2 8.7
Unrelated adults 10 9.9 2 8.7
Couple without children under 18 23 21.7 - -
Single parent with children under 18 6 5.9 4 17.4
Two parents with children under 18 20 18.8 15 65.2
Multigenerational household 13 12.8 - -

Housing tenure
Owned 60 57.2 10 43.5
Rented 44 42.7 13 56.5

Education
High school student 12 11.5 6 28.6
No high school diploma or GED 5 4.8 8 38.1
High school graduate or GED 15 14.4 5 23.8
College (tertiary) 72 69.2 2 9.5

Median years in USA 19 15

Language spoken at home
English 41 39.4 9 39.1
Spanish 21 20.1 17 73.9
English and Spanish 31 29.7 - -
Other 11 10.5 - -

Table 10 – Socio-demographic characteristics of Latino users vs. non-users

139
Conducting the Focus Groups
I conducted the focus groups on weekday evenings - at times and venues selected by
the recruiters - to ensure that the meetings were convenient and comfortable for
participants. Each focus group lasted approximately two hours. Snacks and non-
alcoholic beverages were provided and all participants received a $25.00
honorarium. As per standard practice, I sent potential participants a letter two weeks
before the focus group and followed up with a reminder telephone call a day before
the meetings.
Before each focus group session began, I asked participants to fill out a short
questionnaire furnishing basic socio-demographic information and information about
participants’ patterns of park use. At this time I also advised participants about the
voluntary nature of the research and requested that participants provide their
informed consent. To start the discussion - as a warm-up exercise - I showed the
groups a map of the national park. This also helped to familiarize participants with
the area under consideration.
I began by asking participants to introduce themselves, and to tell me how
long they had lived in Los Angeles, what they did for a living, and the types of
recreational activities they liked to do in their spare time. I then asked participants
six groups of questions about: (i) the benefits that they derive from recreation; (ii)
their attitudes towards the environment; (iii) their awareness and perception of the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area; (iv) whether they had ever

140
experienced any constraints or barriers to park use; (v) whether they had experienced
conflict when visiting parks; and (vi) actions that they would like to take to fix the
problems they encountered when visiting parks (see appendix 2).
Because all participants in the first focus group were monolingual Spanish
speakers - as were four participants in the second focus group - I was assisted by a
Latino, Spanish-speaking moderator who ran the first group and a Latina, Spanish-
speaking community volunteer who assisted with co-moderating the second group.
The moderators also simultaneously translated focus group questions for
participants’ and participants’ answers for me. In those instances where clarification
of questions was required – the moderators asked me for feedback, and then
translated the responses back into Spanish for participants.
I recorded participants’ comments on tape recorders. Notes were also taken
during both sessions to document the order in which participants spoke, and to
capture non-verbal communications - such as gestures and facial expressions. The
tapes were then transcribed and Spanish sections were translated into English. I
mailed participants a copy of the focus group transcripts - in both English and
Spanish - to ensure that they had the opportunity to provide feedback and to correct
any errors or inaccuracies. To protect their anonymity, all participant names were
changed to pseudonyms. I did not receive any feedback on the mailed transcripts.

141

Figure 15 – The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area

I then coded and analyzed the focus group transcripts using QSR N5 – a
version of NUD*IST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and
Theorizing) qualitative research software (Richards 2000). I used a coding tree that I
had developed prior to undertaking the focus groups for initial coding. Later I
modified the coding tree based upon participants’ responses; the modified version
formed the basis for transcript analysis. I used the coding tree to identify key themes
and to match these to subjects. These themes included the types of parks that
participants visited, barriers that they encountered, benefits they derived from park
visitation, their recreational behaviors, attitudes towards nature, experiences of

142
conflict, and their perceptions of who uses the park and the activities they undertake
while there (see Appendix 3).
Findings
Some of my findings were expected, as similar results have been reported elsewhere.
These include the finding that time constraints and perceptions of safety affect
Latinos’ ability to use parks. But other findings were unexpected. These include my
findings that Latinos may perceive some parks to be racialized landscapes; that a
lack of Spanish-language information about parks may constrain their use; and that
although Latinos possess a strong desire to access urban nature spaces, racial
formations in Southern California may influence their leisure decisions and ability to
access urban nature in Los Angeles.
Recreational and leisure activities
I found that focus group participants engaged in various recreational activities in
their spare time. Many centered upon family activities such as picnicking,
barbequing, and swimming, and were typical of those reported in the literature (see
table 2). Active recreation (e.g. volleyball, soccer, and baseball) and passive
recreation (e.g. reading) activities were mentioned with the same frequency - though
many entailed group activities rather than individual pursuits.
Many participants engaged both ‘stereotypical’ Latino activities and activities
not traditionally associated with Latinos. For example, Liani, a 55 year old Mexican

143
native who has lived in LA for 25 years, said that when she and her family visit
parks:
“We play baseball…even including myself, I play baseball with them,
with my kids. And we made some barbeque, and we have fun. Yeah,
but we do all these – we play tennis, you know. …[w]e go we go as a
family…in a special day like Easter. And we go all the families, three
or four brothers or sisters together, and all the nephews…and it’s a
big crowd [very excited]. So we play, we do different things…and we
made some barbeque, and we have fun”.

Another participant - Solana, a 54 year old Mexican native and mother of three -
liked “to ride horses with [her] husband”. Duena – a 37 year old domestic worker,
also mother of three, enjoyed basketball and soccer. And Juanita – a 35 year old
Mexican native, mother of two and environmental home-educator enjoyed “arts and
crafts and making clothes”.
Many participants enjoyed swimming, cycling, sewing, going to church,
walking, running, listening to music, playing with their dog, watching television,
home or automobile maintenance and gardening (see table 11). For example, Fonda
– a 33 year old domestic worker- told us: “well we do a barbecue, or we celebrate a
birthday, or we go to the mall.” Some participants also told us that they enjoyed
recreational activities and preferences which are not usually associated with Latinos.
For instance Sally, a 45 year old Chicana, liked to jet-ski; Monica – who was a 25
year old mother and a recent immigrant - enjoyed shopping; Santiago - a 38 year old
Mexican native, father of two, and manual laborer - enjoyed going to movies;
Herminia – a 40 year old mother from Guadalajara enjoyed yoga;

144
Focus Groups
(n=23)
Survey
(n=103)
Park activity n % n %
Hiking 5 21.7 76 73.8
mountain biking / cycling 3 13.0 29 28.2
jogging / running 3 13.0 30 29.1
dog walking 1 4.3 13 12.5
horse riding 1 4.3 2 1.9
picnicking / barbecue / party 5 21.7 37 35.9
Camping 6 26.0 19 18.4
rock climbing 1 4.3 17 16.3
Swimming 6 26.0 8 7.8
Sunbathing 1 4.3 10 9.7
Dancing 1 4.3 - -
sport (e.g. tennis / baseball) 5 21.7 - -
jet-skiing 1 4.3 - -
Fishing 1 4.3
other (e.g. educate children) 2 8.6 5 4.9

Leisure pursuit
Reading 3 13.0 - -
Shopping 2 8.6 - -
Exercise 4 17.4 - -
watch television / DVD 1 4.3 - -
spend time with family 6 26.0 - -
home or car improvement 1 4.3 - -
gardening / community garden 2 8.6 - -
go to church 6 26.0 - -
go to park 9 39.1 - -
go to pool 3 13.0 - -
go to beach 5 21.7 - -
go to the movies 1 4.3 - -
arts and crafts 1 4.3 - -
make clothing / sewing 2 8.6 - -
listen to music l 4.3 - -
study / education 2 8.6 - -

Note: percentages may add up to more than 100% as multiple answers were possible

Table 11 – Participants’ recreational activities / leisure pursuits

and Elisa – a 31 year old teaching assistant, program aid in a community garden and
mother said she liked to “go to the beach to walk, to run, and to lie under [her]
umbrella”.

145
Park visitation
Almost all the focus group participants reported that they enjoyed visiting parks and
some were very frequent park-goers (see table 12). For instance, Duena said that
visiting parks was: “one of my favorite things – outdoors, green areas, rocks, all that.
…I like a lot to go to the park, to ride a bike. That is what I like most”. She later
added: “four times a week I like to go to this park. Now that we have a dog in the
house, I love to take him…so that he can run…”. Ines – who also works as an
environmental home educator – told us that she too liked to take her dog to the park:
“I just go with my husband and my two daughters and one dog [laughs]. When I go
we always make carne asada”.
Many participants told me that taking their children to the park was an
important reason for their visit. For example, Solana said that she liked to take her
kids to her neighborhood park because it had a pool, play equipment and a library.
For Ruis, a U.S. born tree-trimmer, visiting the park gave him an opportunity to:
“play baseball, play sports, basketball, play with my kids…and just have fun”. Drina,
a Mexican native who has lived in L.A. for 11 years, told me that she also took her
children to the park: “because a lot of people do the (sic) parties in the park [smiles].
They like it and the kids play a lot and nobody complains [laughs]”. Belinda, a U.S.
born assistant manager who was a regular park visitor expressed similar sentiments:
“because it’s so hot in apartments…you kinda go out there and get some fresh
air…so when you’re in the park and everything, there’s fresh air, trees, play with the
kids, walk around…you know…collect pine cones, do a trail and stuff”.

146
Park visitation Focus groups
(n=23)
Survey participants
(n=104)
Park name n % n %
Elysian 2 2.5 - -
Orcas 2 2.5 - -
Las Palmas 3 3.75 - -
Roses 3 3.75 - -
Balboa 4 5 - -
Brandford 4 5 - -
Ritchie Valens 4 5 - -
Veteran’s 4 5 - -
Humphrey 5 6.25 - -
Hansen Dam 6 7.5 - -
El Carriso (Carrezo) 7 8.75 - -
San Fernando 7 8.75 - -
Griffith 10 12.5 - -
Other 19 23.75 - -
Santa Monica Mountains 5 6.25 104 100

Mean visits per month 4 5.5

Season of visit
Summer 18 90 70 67.3
Fall (Autumn) - - 29 27.8
Winter 1 5 29 27.8
Spring - - 37 35.5
All seasons 1 5 - -

Day of week visiting
Weekdays 4 17 21 20.3
Weekends 20 87 43 41.8

Time of day visiting
Morning 9 39.1 47 45.1
Afternoon 18 78.2 36 34.6
Evening 6 29 27.8

Table 12 – Participants’ patterns of park visitation

Indeed, the importance of parks to children, and the role of childhood
experiences in shaping park visitation were interconnected and recurrent themes
throughout the focus group discussions. Rosario articulated a commonly felt
sentiment when she said: “I like to be in the parks and in green areas because that

147
reminds me of when I was a kid. I used to love to hike, to go to a ranch, and when I
am in the countryside thinking, I imagine that I am back there in Mexico”. During
one meeting the topic generated an extended and animated conversation. Some
participants talked about their early experiences of nature and how much they valued
being able to engage in nature-oriented, outdoor recreation as the following excerpt
shows:
Juanita: What I wanna (sic) say is that last year we went with a
group of people… and went camping, and I took my son,
and the little one, and you know what he said: ‘Momma,
thank you Mommy for, you know, taking me, bringing
me to the trees, it’s wonderful.’ And then he said: ‘Does
this, uh, park have bears?’ ‘Yes, they have’. And he was
kind of scared, but we had fun.
Isabel: I like the water a lot. I like to swim a lot. When I was a
child I used to live where there was a big river. Nothing
was better than the river and the water.
Herminia: When I was a child I was in a boarding school so I was
indoors all the time. But in vacation they used to take me
to a ranch, and I loved it [sounds excited/sentimental].
There was quicksand, and a lake, a river. It was great.
Liani: When I was a child, I remember what we used to do…it
was a town, a very small town…we used to go to
hills…my grandma used to live at the bottom, and we
used to go to the hill and play [smiles]. And we used to
look for some little things to take out of the ground, like a
little, uh, something that you eat.
Solana: My mom and my dad never went with us because there
was (sic) five in our family…and …two cousins…we
were seven. We would get together with other kids after
school. Ten minutes away there was a lake on a river.
After school we would go there and…would throw our
bags…[everyone laughs]…on the way to the river we
would take off our clothes, and then they would jump in.

148
However, other participants like Ines were put off by early experiences with snakes,
heat, etc, and spend more time now in their backyards or local parks rather than
making excursions to the local mountains.

Ines: Uh, I was born in Mexico and I lived…in a small town, a
little ranch. …There was a big mountain just for us, and,
uh, rivers. And I had, I had, a wonderful life when I was
young, but I had problems with the snakes, because I, oh
my God, I am scared. And that’s why now I don’t want
to…I don’t like to go camping, because I am scared of
snakes.

Educating children about nature was a clear benefit derived from park
visitation. But participants also told us of numerous other benefits, including
‘escaping the city’, ‘getting fresh air’, ‘exercise’ and ‘health’, observing ‘beautiful
scenery’, ‘enjoying nature’, ‘relaxing’, ‘escap[ing] daily routines’ and providing
‘relief from hectic work schedules’. Several participants also felt that being with the
family was an especially important benefit, because as Elisa explained: “this is the
only time we have together. Between school, work and so on, we don’t see each
other”, an opinion echoed by Ramona who said: “because I work, and they go to
school, we need to have time together, to go out to the park and to walk”.
Several participants told me that visiting parks gave them a chance to ‘forget
about [their] problems’. Duena is a good example. She said: “I change completely
there. My mind changes. I wouldn’t be able to live without a mountain…”. Her
strong attachment to nature was shared by others and contact with nature was a

149
frequently mentioned park benefit. Lola captured this sentiment when she said that
she visited parks: “because I like the silence…no car noise, no people noise, I am
happy with just hearing birds singing, little animals here and there, it is good for your
health”.
Attitudes towards nature
As can be seen from some of the preceding quotations, nature was a recurrent theme
in the focus group conversations. Participants displayed a range of attitudes towards
nature, from egocentric to ecocentric perspectives (Merchant 1996), but most shared
the belief that nature should be protected. For example, responding to a question
about whether the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area should be for
nature or for people, Ines expressed bewilderment. She wondered why houses
adjoined the park, saying:
There in the mountains…there are many houses. Why are there
houses there? We are talking about saving the mountain, and there are
people selling places where the rich people can live, so we’re not
saving the mountain!
Despite her fear of animals, Ines believed that nature had value and should be
protected. Other participants expressed similar opinions. Sonja told us: “The reason
is the environment. Unfortunately, it is very destroyed, and we need to return to it
some of what we have taken from it”. Similarly, Rosario stated that: “I think those
areas would be for plants and animals…Because I love animals, plants and it would
be good for all the people who like animals”.

150
But participants also expressed dissenting perspectives. Some, like Duena
and Lola, felt that although the primary purpose of the park was to protect nature,
humans also had a right to be in these places:

Duena: When you ask me that question, it is hard to answer -
(sighs) - because, if I say people, they fill it and if I say
plants, I can’t get in. I prefer plants and animals, but I
also want to get into the parks, because I can’t think of a
place without plants or animals.
Lola: I agree with her, I choose nature, but how can I answer
this question? I think that from the very beginning, men
and animals were together. I think we should keep both.
Duena: If we educate people, we can have people, plants and
animals all together. Animals are a risk for us, or we are a
risk for them. But, for instance, when we went to Griffith
Park, we hiked and we saw a deer and that was something
that I will never forget. My kids were: ‘Hey Mami, it is a
deer.’ I said ‘wait, wait, wait... I want to see it!’ ...because
it is a beautiful experience to see an animal that you don’t
get to see in your every day life.

Other participants felt that places should be set aside exclusively for nature:

Elisa: I think that it should be a balance, where we have the
opportunity to be there, but that there are restricted areas
where you can get in…
Dolores: That is why it is not a good idea to get people in the
parks.

151
And some participants like Ramona believed that the main reason why we need
places like the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is for people and
active recreation. The place for animals is the zoo:

Ramona: I think that recreational parks are for people. The animals
should be in the zoo. If we want to see animals, we can
go to the zoo. Parks are for people, if there is a car or a
bike, the animals go away. Parks only for animals, or
only for people.

From these extracts we can see that focus group participants held strong opinions
about the function and benefits of parks, and that experiencing nature was an
important part of their lives. Yet, as we shall see in the next section, many
participants also reported that they encountered a range of barriers when trying to
access parks in Los Angeles.
Constraints to park access and use
Participants told me that they encountered numerous constraints to visiting their local
parks. Lack of parks was itself seen to be a formidable barrier, and few believed that
there was sufficient park space within Los Angeles. Some barriers participants
encountered were just a nuisance (e.g. litter and crowding), but others prevented
participants from visiting parks altogether – such as fear of crime (e.g. gangs and
drug activities). For example, Ines said: “I don’t like to go to the park alone with my
two daughters because I am afraid”.

152
Responding to a question about what types of people they found intimidating
in parks, Rosario stated “black people”. Elisa immediately interjected, saying:
When you say ‘black’ I assume that you mean those black people who
have the look of a gang member, because if I go to a park and I see a
black person, I don’t care. But if they are homeless, and they bother
people asking for money, then I would feel uncomfortable. Even my
girls run away and say ‘mommy, mommy, look at that guy…”.

In a different focus group, Duena - referring to MacArthur Park (a major park
located in central Los Angeles) - told me that: “there are a lot of negative people…in
that park. That prevents us from going because there are a lot of people who are
strange and bad around”. Elisa agreed with her saying that: “we have seen things that
we don’t want our children to see…like drug dealing”. Speaking of the same park
Lola stated: “I never go there because there are a lot of people drinking. I am afraid
that they are going to do something to me…I don’t go because of the people.”
Rosalind recounted a story of how her brother-in-law who lived in Panorama
traveled a long distance to visit Brandford Park because his wife’s purse had been
stolen in a park closer to home, and he felt safer in the more distant park. Hearing
this story Ruis said: “some parks do not have enough lights. They’ve got cholos
[gangs] out there and there’s [sic] lots of activities that shouldn’t be going on where
there’s families”. Other constraints that were identified included absence of shade,
parking shortages, poison oak, overcrowding, litter, lack of companions, experiences
of racism and substandard facilities.

153
Several animated discussions occurred around the topic of park facilities.
Speaking of Lafayette Park (also located in central Los Angeles), Lola said: “I don’t
want to go there…everything is so dirty. The parks are beautiful but they are not
clean, there are no trees, it is not comfortable…”. Lola wanted parks that had running
water and clean paths. Rosario mentioned her desire for “places to wash my hands”
and “games for the kids” as well as “toilets, bathrooms and a place to sit, green grass,
trees…”. In a different focus group Belinda identified crowding as a problem: “we
find that at every park that we go to, there is overcrowding. There’s nowhere to sit.
You have to go there early…the parks around here are so messed up”.
When I asked participants if they thought they would like to visit the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, the question drew a mixed response.
Some expressed enthusiasm: “[i]t looks beautiful. I like it. And I would like to go”
(Liani); “if that park is big and nicer than other parks, then I’d like to go to it”
(Belinda). But others felt that various constraints would prevent them from visiting
the park. The most obvious of these was a lack of knowledge about the park itself:
“if we don’t know where it is, how are we going to get there” (Monica); and “I don’t
know about it…I don’t know the name” (Lola). But transportation difficulties,
language issues, time constraints, expense of travel, entry fees, work responsibilities,
park staff, park facilities, potential experiences of racism and the types of people
thought to visit the park were also seen to be problems.
Travel distance to parks was an issue for many participants. For example,
when I asked Lola about her perceptions of the national park, she responded: “I

154
imagine that it is far away, and it is not an option [for me] to go so far away”.
Similarly, Isleta remarked that: “it is too far away to take the bus, one spends the
entire day in the bus”, and Fonda replied: “I don’t have a car to go there”. Not having
a car was also a problem for Isleta: “I want to go, but I need to go with someone with
a car!”. For Rosario, travel was a problem because she was constrained by her work
commitments. She told me: “Sometimes we are cleaning an apartment and someone
says ‘oh, I want to go [to the park]’, but how? Taking the bus? I’d better stay home
sleeping.” Being reliant upon public transportation constrained many participants
form visiting parks. They expressed frustration that the bus takes too long to travel to
and from the park. Monica summed this up when she said: “[t]he convenience of a
park being close by, the distance is short and is faster to get there, especially if you
only have two hours to relax”.
Other participants identified the characteristics of the park and surrounding
neighborhoods as constraints to its use. Delores told us “park entrances are in hidden
areas, and you can’t really find them” and “in general there is no information about
possible activities”. But some participants also felt concerned about who was likely
to use the park and who lived nearby. Indeed, the way that participants perceived the
park strongly influenced their opinions about whether it would be a good place to
visit. Some felt that they would be ostracized by park users, as the following excerpt
shows:

155
Ines: I have a question. The people who live there… they are
not going to get mad? Because it sometimes happens that
people…that Spanish people or illegal people… already
know to go to that park? [general laughter] Because do
they really know that there is a park? [laughter]
MOD: So tell me a bit more about this. Would you feel
comfortable going to this kind of park?
Ines: Well, if there is not a thing that…lets Mexicans in…if
they agree for us to go…
Juanita: You know, like a kind of permission…they won’t like
Spanish people coming in…[trails off]
MOD: You said something a second ago Herminia that I didn’t
quite hear…
Herminia: Well, we don’t know because we haven’t been there, but
there could be racist,
uh…white…disrespectful…[behavior] Not a lot of Latino
people go there…

Ines’ comments about “illegal people” and the laughter and responses they elicited
from other participants, suggested that some participants felt that they were not
regarded as ‘real’ or ‘legal’ people. They felt they lacked standing in the wider
community.
Many participants felt unwelcome in parks and believed that if they visited
the SMMNRA they would encounter racism. Juanita, for instance, recounted a story
of how her uncle worked on houses in Malibu and needed a pass to get onto the
estates. She thought she might need a similar pass to visit the park. Santiago even
suggested that residents might call the sheriff if they saw Latinos using the park.
Lola captured much of the apprehension about using the park when she stated: “that
is the area of American people, that is their park…it never occurred to me to go to
that park. Not even my church goes there”. When the moderator prompted Lola to

156
clarify what she meant by ‘American’ she pointed to me and said: “White like him”.
Duena put it bluntly: “gringo” she said, much to the amusement of others who burst
into laughter.
Feelings of not belonging and perceptions of being unwelcome emerged as
important constraints. Participants like Luna clearly felt that the national park was
the territory of others, and somewhere that Latinos would not be welcome. She said:
“[t]hat is the area of American people, that is their park”. Belinda believed that only
surrounding residents would use the park, as did Santiago (see figure 16). But
Santiago saw localized park use as a particular problem:

MOD: Santiago, can you tell me who you think goes out to the
mountains? Who uses those areas?
Yolanda: [translates for Santiago who is very animated]
Yolanda: Mostly Americans.
MOD: Americans? Uh-huh. What kind of Americans?
Drina: They are rich. Rich people.

Like most participants, Santiago perceived that national park was a Wealthy, white
enclave. This perception appeared to shape participants’ willingness to visit the park.
Some were angry at what they perceived to be an unfair situation. For example
Duena stated: “I think that those parks should not only be for American people but
for everybody”. But Ruis was very philosophical: “I guess the Mexicans
and…whatever race you are you feel more comfortable if there are people that are
the same race are there…so they probably would feel uncomfortable if there’s white

157
people there, Chinese people were there, you know, Filipino, whatever you may
be…”.

Figure 16 – Up-scale houses adjoining the national park

The recreational style of Latinos appeared to be a major reason why
participants believed that they would not be welcome in the park. Several
participants told me that they thought that Latinos were boisterous when they visited
parks, and that visiting in large groups, playing music and having fun would offend
White park users. Duena believed that: “American people go there to rest, to get out
of the city, and we go to make noise, to have fun and that is not good for them”.

158
Some participants like Delores expressed discomfort in visiting parks like the
SMMNRA, perhaps because they were unsure of behavioral norms in natural areas:

Dolores: But I think there is a problem here. In general, people go
to one place and there is a big crowd there. My sister and
I went there [SMMNRA]. We were really afraid because
we thought that we were going to be thrown out. We
didn’t want to make any noise and we didn’t want to talk
loud or anything. Why? Because there is nothing there,
and all the other parks are full of people and trash.

But Ramona had a slightly different concern; she did not want to feel like an
outsider. She told us: “I would feel like a stranger…around American people.” She
elaborated: “maybe they think we don’t belong there, or maybe it’s a private area, or
they might think we are invading them.” But not all agreed with her perspective.
Dolores voiced the opinion that “not all American people are the same”.
Nonetheless, participants were generally concerned about being identified as
different or feeling like outsiders.
Not being able to communicate with other park users or park staff was a
related issue. Many participants felt that the English language signage was a
constraint and that a lack of bilingual park staff would make it difficult to use to
park. For example, Monica said: “the problem is the language. I would feel very
uncomfortable and tense if I can’t communicate for basic stuff – ‘what time is it?’ or
‘how do I get there? etc.”. Ramona agreed. She said:

159
I wouldn’t feel good because I don’t speak English. If I have a
problem, I can’t talk to them and they can’t talk to me. …And also
there are millionaires there, and I am poor. How am I going to
approach them? If I approach them, they will feel that I want
something from them or that I am going to do something to them.

Many participants told me that they would be reluctant to visit the national park
because there was no Spanish-language information available. Lola summed up this
feeling when she said: “because you can’t talk to them if you don’t know English,
you will be mute.” Participants wanted to see even just simple information about
‘how to get to the park’, ‘what things we can do there’, ‘where are the toilets’, and
‘what kind of food are they eating there?’. Others wanted to know: ‘do we need a
permit?’, can we get ‘driving directions?’ and as Monica said, it would help: “if a
sign said ‘public park’ in Spanish”.
Discussion
Several studies have reported that Latinos are avid park-goers (Loukaitou-Sideris
1995; Sasidharan et al. 2005), a finding corroborated by my research. Participants in
my focus groups told me that there were a variety of reasons why they visited parks
– some of which are rarely reported in the literature (e.g. educating children about
nature, exercise and escaping the city). Leisure researchers have found that Latinos
are more likely to visit parks in large extended-family groups, and generally for
longer periods of time than other ethno-racial groups (Gobster 2002; Hutchison
1987; Irwin et al. 1990; Shaull and Gramann 1998). I also found that Latinos enjoyed
visiting parks in large family groups. But I found a wider array of recreational

160
activities than have been reported elsewhere (e.g. jetskis), suggesting that views of
Latinos as people whose park activities revolve around picnics, barbecues and soccer
are at best stereotypical, and may essentialize and denigrate Latinos.
Although I investigated the possibility that Latinos visit the Santa Monica
Mountains in comparatively lower numbers than Whites because they favor more
active recreational pursuits and developed parklands, this did not seem to be the case.
Most focus group participants reported that they enjoyed a range of outdoor activities
such as hiking, camping, swimming and picnicking, activities that are typically
associated with national park use.
Despite their general desire to visit parks, most participants suggested that an
array of constraints prevented them from doing so. These included lack of
knowledge about the park, no access to park information, lack of time, and concerns
about the types of people who use the parks. Spatial factors were prominent among
participants’ comments. Many said that the park was too far away from their homes.
Others thought that they would not be welcome in the park, and some said the idea of
traversing predominantly White neighborhoods surrounding the park made them feel
anxious.
I also explored the possibility that Latinos’ values might play a role in
shaping park visitation. I suggested that it might be possible that Latinos do not visit
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in comparatively large
numbers because they do not value nature, and instead prefer more developed
environments. However, focus group participants reported an affinity for nature.

161
Many had ecocentric values. While some participants said they were afraid of snakes
and wild animals, many more told me that they took their children to parks
specifically to educate them about nature.
Several other studies have found that Latinos value natural environments
such as parks, forests, lakes and rivers and wildlands (Carr and Williams 1993;
Gobster 2002; Ho et al. 2005; Sasidharan et al. 2005) and have strong affinity for
vegetation and wildlife (Ho et al. 2005; Shaull and Gramann 1998). But participants
in my focus groups demonstrated a wider range of attitudes towards nature than have
been reported elsewhere. Although many told me they derived substantial benefits
from experiencing urban nature, what I found to be particularly compelling was their
revelation that childhood experiences played a central role in shaping their leisure
preferences. Many participants reported that their childhood experiences of nature
were formative. They felt that enjoyment of nature was an important component of
their wellbeing, and expressed a desire for their children to be able to enjoy nature
too. It seems unlikely then, that Latinos attitudes towards nature or environmental
values are responsible for their comparatively lower levels of visitation to the
national park.
Despite their overall affinity for nature, and strong desire to visit urban
greenspaces, focus group participants encountered social and structural constraints to
visiting the national park. For example, many were busy with work and had limited
time to travel long distances to visit the park, especially using public transportation.
Others had family responsibilities that required them to spend time at home, or they

162
felt so tired after working that they could only visit parks on the weekend. For some,
park visitation was only possible in the afternoon and evenings – making park use in
winter particularly difficult due to the early onset of darkness. And for several, just
the expense of traveling to the park was a major constraint.
Not having any information about the park was a formidable barrier to park
use. Because there is very little Spanish-language promotional material about the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, participants had limited
opportunities to learn about the park. Moreover, since parks signs are all written in
English - and many of my informants were either monolingual Spanish speakers or
told me that they were uncomfortable using parks where they could not speak
Spanish with park staff or other users, signage emerged as a very real barrier to their
use of the park.
Not all participants experienced constraints to accessing the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area. Without realizing it, six participants had
actually visited parts of the national park including Soledad Canyon (1), Malibu
Creek State Park (2), Will Rogers State Park (2) and Chantry Flats (1). Others
believed that the barriers to using the park which they encountered were not
insurmountable.
My findings are consistent with several studies that have indirectly
investigated the constraints or barriers that face Latinos wanting to use parks and
open space (e.g. Baas et al. 1993; Gobster 2002; Hutchison 1987; Shaull and
Gramann 1998; Tierney et al. 2001). Those studies found that a lack of public

163
transportation, crowding, few Latino staff, absence of multi-lingual signage,
financial constraints, poor facilities and perceived discrimination were all factors that
affected the ability of Latinos to visit and use urban parks (Gobster 2002; Ho et al.
2005; Perez-Verdin et al. 2004; Tinsley et al. 2002). Gender, age and level of
education have also been found to influence Latino park-going behaviors (Ho et al.
2005; Sasidharan et al. 2005). And language has been identified as a salient barrier
(Ho et al. 2005), because park information is not accessible to monolingual Spanish
speakers, and because many Latinos also appear to rely upon word of mouth or other
informal channels for park information (Baas et al. 1993).
But I found spatial constraints to park use that have not been reported
elsewhere. For example, I found that the ways that Latinos perceive a park can
influence their ideas about whether or not it is a place they would like to visit. The
characteristics of park spaces such as the condition of park facilities, the presence of
shady trees, cleanliness of benches and having a place to wash hands are key
influences on how Latinos perceive a particular park. I also found that how some
participants perceived the kinds of people who use parks in Los Angeles affected
their desire to visit and use those parks. Participants told me that they feared gangs,
drug users and homeless people in central Los Angeles’ parks such as MacArthur
and Lafayette parks and consequently did not want to visit those parks.
Perhaps just as concerning is the fact that several participants also felt
uncomfortable and afraid about visiting wildland parks like the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area because they perceived (correctly) that most

164
park users and most people living close to the park were White. Participants feared
being singled out for being different, boisterous or just because they were Latino.
Some even believed that they would need a pass to visit and use the park or that
other park users or neighborhood residents would call the sheriff because only
‘gringos’ were welcome in that space. Other participants expressed feeling anxious
about visiting the park because they were unsure about the social norms that control
behavior in wildland spaces in the United States.
What my research shows then is that regional racial formations may play a
stronger role in shaping park-use that theorists have previously thought. The non-use
of parks by certain ethno-racial groups may reflect their perceptions of racism and
social exclusion, suggesting the need for further research into how racial formations
affect park use and other leisure activities. And non-White ethno-racial groups may
hold ideas about and attitudes towards other ethno-racial groups based upon
suspicion, distrust or even fear – which may act as deterrents against park use. The
fact that some of the Latinos I spoke with associated gang violence, drug use and
homelessness with some African-American park users suggests that racial antipathies
transcend White-non-White dualisms. Park managers including the National Park
Service and California Department of Parks and Recreation will thus need to re-think
their outreach strategies.

165
Conclusion
In this chapter I have explored the possibility that spatial constraints such as
distance, park distribution, park characteristics, perceptions of who uses parks and
the activities they undertake, and English-language park information
disproportionately impact Latinos who live near the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area. I postulated that Latinos might visit the park in
comparatively fewer numbers because they live further away than other users, they
feel unwelcome or feel that they do not belong in the park and thus avoid it; they are
estranged by park characteristics such as inadequate facilities, or that they are not
aware of the park and hence cannot use it. What I found was that some Latinos feel
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is difficult to access, is too
far from home, is elitist and unwelcoming – and is even perceived as being
potentially hostile. I also found that Latinos face time constraints, family
responsibilities and transportation difficulties that may also constrain their ability to
use the park.
Obviously not all these constraints are easily remedied. Some like long
working hours, fatigue and long travel distances will be difficult to overcome.
Several commentators have noted that it is hard to conceptually separate many of
these constraints since they can operate as interlocking and mutually reinforcing
barriers (Mowen et al. 2005; Ruddick 1996; Samdahl and Jekubovich 1997). Others,
like parenthood, should not be essentialized, because people may find ways to

166
overcome or negotiate associated difficulties like lack of time (Brown et al. 2001;
Carroll and Alexandris 1997; Crompton and Kim 2004). And some, like age, will
change over time - e.g. physical capabilities decline as one gets older (Hung and
Crompton 2006; Payne et al. 2002; Tinsley et al. 2002).
My research has shown that the ecocentric values of the focus group
participants, and their strong desire to teach their children about nature, augur well
for future ecological restoration and park development efforts in Los Angeles. It
suggests that there is a real possibility that access to greenspace in cities like Los
Angeles could become more socially equitable and ecologically sustainable. But to
make this happen, socio-spatial barriers and constraints to park utilization must be
remedied. In the conclusion to this dissertation, I suggest some practical ways that
these issues might be addressed by park management agencies, and I point to some
directions for future research.

167
Conclusion: Are parks racialized landscapes?

Because parks are socially produced natures, park histories, park-making ideologies
and park ecologies may reflect divisions present in broader society. My aim in this
dissertation has been to demonstrate that ethno-racially differentiated park use in Los
Angeles - and by extension the United States - may have socio-spatial causes that are
historically constituted through processes of racial formation. Geographic variables
such as residential location, park distribution and facility provision should be
regarded as important potential correlates of park use. Drawing upon two case
studies, I have attempted to show how some of these variables have played a central
role in shaping who uses Los Angeles’ Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area and
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and how communities of color
may perceive these places.
In the first chapter I charted the historical development of parks in the United
States using a genealogical approach. Although geographic literature on parks is
relatively scarce, I showed that geographers have provided useful ways of looking at
parks. In particular, geographers have shown that park spaces are repositories of
ideologies about how society should function, what human bodies should look like
and how nature benefits people. The environmental justice, cultural landscape and
political ecology literatures provide us with important cues about the potential causes
of ethno-racially differentiated park use, because they highlight various problems

168
associated with urban natures, especially the public health and socio-ecological
consequences of the uneven spatial distribution of greenspace within cities.
Dissatisfied with leisure studies’ explanations for why many parks exhibit
patterns of ethno-racially differentiated park use, I have outlined a conceptual
framework for geographic research on parks, a framework that suggests how parks
might function as racialized landscapes. Applying this framework to two parks in
Los Angeles, I have explained that park use is configured by the interplay between:
(i) the historically and culturally contingent context of park provision; (ii) the
characteristics of park users; (iii) the physical and ecological characteristics of park
spaces; and (iv) how users and non-users perceive those spaces.
In the chapters 2, 3 and 4 I mobilized this conceptual frame to discuss how
two parks in Los Angeles – the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (a park used
predominantly by people of color) and the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area (a park used mostly by Whites) appear to have been shaped by the
region’s racial formations in quite distinctive ways. I have also showed how in turn
these racialized inscriptions may have configured how people of color perceive and
use these parks.
Drawing upon insights from urban political ecology, I have argued that park
access and utilization may be produced through political, cultural and economic
contestations over access to nature and its benefits. On the one hand, park developers
in Los Angeles have envisaged parks as vehicles to quell civil unrest, juvenile
delinquency and a range of other social issues. Parks have functioned as instruments

169
of social control – or as Young (1996) has suggested – as organic machines to create
a better society. But at the same time, some communities of color may reject
paternalistic and oftentimes discriminatory actions of some park advocates,
developers and managers, by creating alternative visions for parks, and using
traditional park spaces in new ways. Some non-White park-users appear to have
partly resisted hegemonic and Anglo-normative functions of parks either by
(un)intentionally using park spaces in ways that do not fit White behaviors, by
(re)claiming parks for their own use (Ford and Griffin 1981), or by actively engaging
with park designers to create new types of park with cultural significance for their
communities (e.g. the Augustus-Hawkins nature park in South Los Angeles).
I have also shown that the symbolic and material registers of race within park
spaces may configure people’s perceptions about particular park spaces, and how in
turn these perceptions may influence decisions about whether or not to use certain
parks. Some of these constraints or barriers to use are place-based. They reflect
particular meanings invested in some types of parks (e.g. urban national parks). And
parks themselves may echo particular racial-formations in the way they are designed,
how they are maintained, the equipment and services that they provide and in how
different types of parks are distributed throughout the urban fabric. In other words,
some parks may be racialized landscapes.
For example, people of color are disproportionately under-represented among
visitors to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. This appears to be
related to the distance of this park from communities of color, the character of the

170
neighborhoods that surround the park, absence of multi-lingual signage, difficulties
in accessing the park by public transportation and to perceptions about the types of
people who use this park and the activities and behaviors that are considered to be
acceptable within the park. And some parks, like the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation
Area, have been developed with the specific intention of diffusing race-based
antipathies and quelling social unrest – a decidedly race-based agenda.
Ameliorating spatial constraints to park use
Although the racialization of park spaces may be problematic, there is substantial
evidence to suggest that parks confer numerous benefits upon their users. To
systematically deprive certain groups from visiting and using parks – whether
intentionally or not – may constitute a social and environmental injustice. But it
seems that park managers may be able to take some practical steps to ameliorate
some of the spatial barriers to park use that I have identified in my research.
For example, efforts to encourage Latinos and other people of color to visit
and use Los Angeles’ parks should focus on both material barriers - such as signage
and lack of public transportation - and discursive and symbolic barriers - such as
park norms and perceptions of who is welcome in the park. Breaking down feelings
of social exclusion and pejorative attitudes about other park users may be an
important place to begin such ameliorative action. But it is also imperative to
recognize that greenspace is unequally distributed throughout Los Angeles (Wolch et
al. 2005) and that steps need to be taken to provide additional parks, trails,

171
cycleways, nature areas etc. within park deprived communities. This may entail
brownfield redevelopment and ecological restoration – much like that which
occurred in the creation of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area.
Steps to make existing park spaces more accessible to communities of color
could include requiring park managers provide multilingual park signage. This could
go a long way towards overcoming the perception that certain parks are the sole
territory of Whites. Increasing the number of non-White staff employed within Los
Angeles’ park could also assist in reconciling perceived antipathies, as would
providing more facilities for non-traditional users such as larger areas for family
gatherings with barbecue pits and benches in shady areas close to water. But it will
also be important to make sure that traditionally alienated populations can have a say
in park rules and enforcement of those rules.
For instance, providing more park information available in Spanish could
significantly increase Latinos awareness of parks like the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area. The National Park Service could also match the English
content of its web page with Spanish content. Currently Spanish-language park
information is minimal. Another potential solution may be to place ‘infomercials’
within Spanish-language newspapers and community service announcements on
Spanish-language television. Further, the park service in conjunction with the Los
Angeles’ Metropolitan Transit Agency could promote public transportation routes to
the park - together with other park information - within Latino communities, perhaps
by placing Spanish-language park advertising on the side of busses that traverse

172
Latino neighborhoods. And the park service should embark upon a program of
recruiting Latino park staff, and developing new ways to involve Latinos in the
management of the park – such as the development of an advisory board.
A significant improvement would be for the National Park Service to move
beyond simply promoting the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to
Latinos, to actually involving Latinos in park decision-making (e.g. design,
programming and management). For instance, the National Park Service could
develop opportunities for greater participation by Latinos in the design of trails,
recreation, camping and picnic areas, interpretive and education programs, after-
school programs and active-living and healthy lifestyle programs. Given the
importance that focus group participants placed on childhood education, developing
environmental and nature education programs for children of color would also
greatly improve the ability of the park to deliver on its original mandate. Finally, the
National Park Service could also consider funding for urban trail heads – such as the
program that ran in the Augustus Hawkins Park in South Los Angeles – where
Latinos and other people of color could access the national park via a weekend
shuttle that operated from certain neighborhood parks.
Directions for further research
This dissertation opens the way towards a much broader agenda of inquiry into race
and park use than has previously been pursued by geographers and leisure
researchers, and marks the beginning of a more interdisciplinary conversation about

173
park use and park provision. As I stated in the introduction to this dissertation, I do
not claim that the research is definitive. There are several ways that future research
could improve our understanding of why parks exhibit ethno-racial variations in their
use, and why people of color are not well-represented within certain parks. These
include undertaking research on the relationship of park use with information about
parks, with park characteristics, with travel patterns and behaviors, with residential
location and with other socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, sexual
orientation, and age.
Park information
My research has shown that Latinos use different sources of information than Whites
to learn about the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. How might
improved information about the park foster increased utilization? For example, few
Latinos used the ranger services provided within the park. Does the ethno-racial
identity of park rangers affect how people of color perceive them? Would better
representation of Latinos and Asians among park staff improve visitation levels? If
park staff were fluent in multiple languages, would this facilitate increased use by
traditionally under-represented populations? An obvious possibility is that multi-
lingual information brochures, signage and maps may give people of color access to
a greater range of park facilities and spaces, and in turn foster higher levels of use,
but this remains to be tested. Given that past research has found that Latinos rely
more on social networks to get access to information about urban wildlands in Los
Angeles than do Whites (Tierney et al. 2001), and may be constrained as a result

174
(Spotts and Stynes 1985), more research is required into how various ethno-racial
groups access and use information about parks.
Park characteristics
More research is also required on how park characteristics affect park use by people
of color. What is the role played by facilities such as restrooms, drinking fountains,
rest areas, information signs and rubbish bins? Would improved parking, additional
drinking fountains or trails dedicated to visitors and their companion-animals foster
increases in park utilization? Findings from recent recreational urban trail use
research suggest this may be the case (Reynolds, et al., 2007), but these questions are
yet to be answered for parks.
We know for instance that some Latinos favor certain areas within the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area over others. It would be useful to
compare the environmental attributes of these areas with other sites within the park,
and with other large parks located within Los Angeles to ascertain what site
characteristics make a park more appealing to Latinos (e.g. parking facilities, shade,
barbecues and picnic facilities). A survey of Latinos at these sites could compare
their park visitation characteristics and preferences with the broader Latinos
population, thus telling us if the national park attracts a certain type of visitor.
Travel behaviors
Park use has also been found to decline with increasing travel distance (e.g. Hanink
and White 1999). Most studies have assumed that this pattern is simply a function of
travel cost (Lockwood and Tracy 1995; Pendleton and Mendelsohn 2000; Smith

175
1980; Willis 2003). But some researchers (Stynes et al. 1985) have found park
attributes are stronger predictors of utilization than distance. The quality of parks has
also been found to be a confounding variable in distance decay models, as has the
variety of park facilities, size of the park, type of park, and age of the park (op. cit.).
Parks that are older (hence better known), have better facilities, are better
maintained, and are bigger, will have increased catchment areas – that is people will
be prepared to travel further to use them (Hanink and White 1999; Spotts and Stynes
1985; Stynes et al. 1985). However, the extent to which these relationships hold
across the class/race/gender spectrum has yet to be full investigated.
My research on the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
demonstrated that most park visitors arrived by private automobile. Future research
could consider how access to public transportation affects park use. For example,
there are currently two bus routes that provide access to the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area, but little is known about the socio-demographic
characteristics of the populations these routes serve, and whether patrons regard
public transit as a viable way to access the park.
Future research could investigate how people of color feel about using public
transit to access this and other parks, whether they find it to be cost-effective,
convenient, and efficient, and whether or not it meets other needs. It would be useful
to ascertain if for example, Latinos make trade-offs between park facilities and travel
distance. Are those parks with a greater variety of facilities more attractive to
Latinos? If so, do these facilities justify further travel? And do certain types of

176
nature-park hold more appeal and thus have a bigger catchment than say regional
parks?
And what about access to public transportation? Are there ethno-racial
differences between parks with good public transport accessibility? Do parks in
White neighborhoods have better public transit accessibility than parks located in
neighborhoods characterized by a predominance of people of color? And how do
intervening non-park related opportunities such as movie theatres, fast-food hang-
outs, video game arcades, or shopping centers differentially affect park use in
racially-distinct neighborhoods? (e.g. Fesenmaier and Lieber 1985; Scott and
Munson 1994; Smith 1980).
Park location
Few researchers have considered whether distance decay patterns in park visitation
vary by race and ethnicity. My research demonstrated that people of color travel
further than Whites to visit the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
But is this true for the San Gabriel Mountains or the Los Angeles Forest? Nor have
researchers investigated whether there are variations in the kinds of facilities that are
found in parks located in communities of color compared with predominantly White
neighborhoods. Are there variations in park size, park quality, the ‘naturalness’ of
the park and the age of parks located in various ethno-racial communities?
Given that many focus group participants I spoke with mentioned that they
experienced difficulties in accessing parks, further research could investigate
whether parks of varying sizes and with different facilities are located within close

177
proximity to Latino populations. In other words, do Latinos experience greater
difficulties in accessing greenspace than other ethno-racial groups? Surveying people
from other ethno-racial backgrounds to determine if they too face the types of
constraints identified by participants in my focus groups would go some way
towards answering this question.
What about the role that historical patterns of racism play in shaping the
present distribution of parks in urban areas and the recreation facilities they contain?
Have stereotypical assumptions about the recreational preferences of people of color
shaped the types of facilities recreational managers have provided in parks within
communities of color? Have historically racially segregated housing markets and
racially motivated patterns of park provision influenced the present distribution of
parks within communities of color? If so, have these patterns remained static, or are
they changing? And what role do people of color play in reshaping their access to
urban nature?
We need to move away from research that essentializes ethno-racial groups
like Latinos as cultural monoliths (Carr and Williams 1993; Floyd and Gramann
1993; Gobster 2002; Sasidharan et al. 2005; Zhang and Gobster 1998) or reinforces
dominant ethno-racial categories. Future research must work to destabilize the fixity
of ethno-racial constructs without excluding the possibility that certain groups do
enjoy culturally distinctive and different recreational pursuits, or problematizing
these activities and preferences. And future research should also recognize that

178
Whites constitute an ethno-racial group – a group with their own recreational
preferences and prejudices that influence their perceptions of certain park spaces.
To re-think the mutability of racial formations, future park research could
examine for example why Whites who live on the Westside of Los Angeles are
reluctant to visit inner-city parks like MacArthur Park, comparing this with reasons
why people of color feel unsafe in this same park (as was suggested by focus group
participants in my research). And it would be productive to move beyond White-non-
White distinctions to investigate broader concerns of how different ethno-racial
groups regard each others park usage activities and proclivities. What types of parks
do Latinos associate with Asians? Do Asian-park goers feel safe in parks
predominantly associated with African-Americans or Latinos? Do African-
Americans think that Asians favor certain kinds of park activities and park spaces
over others? What barriers do these groups perceive that other groups encounter
when they visit parks? How accurate are these perceptions?
Gender
Last, the combination of race / ethnicity and gender may be especially insidious. We
know for example that gender influences physical activity in multiple ways. Women
face more time and financial constraints than men (Hall and Page 2002; Lee et al.
2001; Shaw 1994) they have household obligations, child rearing, social roles and
family commitments that can act as barriers to physical activity (Bird and Fremont
1991); and women’s fear of violence may constrain access to some recreational
spaces (Burgess et al. 1988; Luymes and Tamminga 1995; Nies 1999; Payne et al.

179
2002; Shaw 1994; Valentine 1991; Whitzman 2002). But the interactions between
race, gender and perceptions of safety in configuring recreational activities and
shaping access to park spaces are less well understood (Fletcher 1983; Koskela 1999;
Ruddick 1996; Westover 1985).
Do cultural norms and values, experiences of racial hostility and histories of
paternalistic park design affect the way women of color perceive and use certain
parks (Eyler et al. 2002; Madge 1997; Nies 1999)? How might gendered recreational
activities (e.g. basketball or soccer) differentially shape the physical activity
opportunities available to teenage White, Latino, African-American and Asian boys
and girls? Are the recreational experiences that women of color seek for their
children (e.g. encounters with wildlife in the city) different to those sought by White
women, and if so, how? And how are women of color mobilizing to achieve park
equity? Finally, future research could also examine how park spaces affect people
according to their sexual-orientation. For instance, what is the interaction, if any,
between ‘queer-space’ and park use. Do histories of oppression of gay people affect
the way they perceive and use certain parks?
Final words
Geographers have been at the forefront of studies examining public space and the
various factors affecting people’s perceptions of belonging and meaning in the urban
environment. The recent effloresce of park research by geographers, augers well for
improved understandings of the complex interconnections between nature, race /

180
ethnicity and environmental justice. We have an excellent opportunity to find better
ways for communities of color to meet their needs for contact with nature and access
to active recreation spaces, ways that also promote physical activity and health.
Geographers are well-positioned to make a significant contribution to future research
examining how multiple-axes of difference (e.g. gender, age sexual orientation)
configure the socio-ecological role of parks within cities. Indeed, the future for the
geographic study of parks looks very promising.

181
Bibliography
Allen, J. P. & Turner, E. (2003) Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping
Southern Californians, Los Angeles, Center for Geographical Studies,
California State University, Northridge.
Aminzadeh, B. & Afshar, D. (2004) Urban parks and addiction. Journal of Urban
Design, 9, 73-87.
Anderson, K. (1987) The idea of Chinatown: the power of place and institutional
practice in the making of a racial category. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 77, 580-598.
Anderson, K. (2002) The racialization of difference: Enlarging the story field.
Professional Geographer, 54, 25-30.
Anderson, K. (2003) White natures: Sydney's Royal agricultural show in post-
humanist perspective. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
28, 422-441.
Arab-Moghaddam, N., Henderson, K. A. & Sheikholeslami, R. (2007) Women's
leisure and constraints to participation: Iranian perspectives. Journal of
Leisure Research, 39, 109-126.
Baas, J. M., Ewert, A. & Chavez, D. J. (1993) Influence of ethnicity on recreation
and natural environment use patterns: Managing recreation sites for ethnic
and racial diversity. Environmental Management, 17, 523-529.
Bachin, R. F. (2003) Cultivating unity: the changing role of parks in urban America.
Places, 15, 12-17.
Baldwin, P. C. (1999) Domesticating the Street: The Reform of Public Space in
Hartford, 1850-1930, Columbus, Ohio State University Press.
Baldwin Hills Dam Disaster Subcommittee, General Research Committee (1964)
Transcript of Baldwin Hills Dam Disaster Subcommittee Hearings, Los
Angeles, 23 and 30 December 1963–28 January 1964.
Barnett, H. (2001) The Chinatown cornfields: Including environmental benefits in
environmental justice studies. Critical Planning, 8, 50-61.
Bebbington, A. J. & Batterbury, S. P. J. (2001) Transnational livelihoods and
landscapes: political ecologies of globalization. Ecumene, 8, 369-380.

182
Bedimo-Rung, A., Mowen, A. J. & Cohen, D. A. (2005) The significance of parks to
physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 28, 159-168.
Bender, B. (2001) Introduction. In Bender, B. & Winer, M. (Eds.) Contested
Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place. Oxford, Berg Press.
Betz, C. J., Bergstrom, J. C. & Bowker, J. M. (2003) A contingent trip model for
estimating rail-trail demand. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 46, 79-96.
Bird, C. E. & Fremont, A. M. (1991) Gender, time use, and health. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 32, 114-129.
Bischoff, A. (1994) Rethinking the urban park: Rediscovering urban solutions. In
Platt, R. H., Rowntree, R. A. & Muick, P. C. (Eds.) The Ecological City:
Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. Amherst, University of
Massachusetts Press.
Blaikie, P. (1999) A review of political ecology. Zeitschrift fur
Wirtschaftsgeographie, 43, 131-147.
Blaikie, P. M. & Brookfield, H. C. (1987) Land Degradation and Society, London,
Methuen.
Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics, 29, 293-301.
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1999)
Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and
neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 19, 331-352.
Bottles, S. L. (1987) Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Modern
City, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Boyer, P. (1978) Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920,
Cambridge, Ma., Harvard University Press.
Braun, B. (2005) Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban
geography. Progress in Human Geography, 29, 635-650.

183
Brooks, J. J., Wallace, G. N. & Williams, D. R. (2006) Place as a relationship
partner: An alternative metaphor for understanding the quality of visitor
experience in a backcountry setting. Leisure Sciences, 28, 331-349.
Brown, P. R., Brown, W. J., Miller, Y. D. & Hansen, V. (2001) Perceived constraints
and social support for active leisure among mothers with young children.
Leisure Sciences, 23, 131-144.
Brownlow, A. (2005) Inherited fragmentations and narratives of environmental
control in entrepreneurial Philadelphia. In Heynen, N., Swyngedouw, E. and
Kaika, M. (Ed.) In the Nature of Cities. New York, Routledge.
Brownlow, A. (2006) An archaeology of fear and environmental change in
Philadelphia. Geoforum, 37, 227-245.
Bryant, R. L. (1997) The Political Ecology of Forestry in Burma, 1924–1994,
Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press.
Bryant, R. L. & Bailey, S. (1997) Third World Political Ecology, London,
Routledge.
Bullard, R. D. (1990) Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality,
Boulder, Co., Westview Press.
Bullard, R. D. (1993) Anatomy of environmental racism and the environmental
justice movement. In Bullard, R. D. (Ed.) Confronting Environmental
Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston, Ma., South End Press.
Bullard, R. D. (1995) Residential segregation and urban quality of life. In Bryant, B.
(Ed.) Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies and Solutions. Washington
D.C., Island Press.
Bunch, L. G. (1990) A past not necessarily prologue: the Afro-American in Los
Angeles. In Klein, N. M. & Schiesl, M. J. (Eds.) Twentieth Century Los
Angeles: Power, Promotion, and Social Conflict. Claremont, Regina Books.
Burger, J. (2003) Perceptions about environmental use and future restoration of an
urban estuary. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46,
399-416.
Burgess, J. (1996) Focusing on fear: the use of focus groups in a project for the
Community Forest Unit, Countryside Commission. Area, 28, 130-135.

184
Burgess, J., Harrisson, C. M. & Limb, M. (1988) People, parks and the urban green:
A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban
Studies, 25, 455-473.
Burns, R. C. & Graefe, A. R. (2007) Constraints to outdoor recreation: Exploring the
effects of disabilities on perceptions and participation. Journal of Leisure
Research, 39, 156-181.
Byrne, J., Kendrick, M. & Sroaf, D. (2007) The park made of oil: Towards a
historical political ecology of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area. Local
Environment.
California, S. o. (2001) Urban Parks Act, California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe
Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. Public Resources
Code. 2001–2002 Regular Session ed.
Cameron, J. (2005) Focusing on the focus group. In Hay, I. (Ed.) Qualitative
Research Methods in Human Geography. South Melbourne, Vic., Oxford
University Press.
Carr, D. S. & Williams, D. R. (1993) Understanding the role of ethnicity in outdoor
recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 22-38.
Carroll, B. & Alexandris, K. (1997) Perception of constraints and strength of
motivation: their relationship to recreationsal sport participation in Greece.
Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 279-299.
Cavett, M. E., Selwood, H. J. & Lehr, J. C. (1982) Social philosophy and the
development of Winnipeg's public parks. Urban History Review, 11, 27-39.
Chadwick, G. F. (1966) The park and the town: Public landscape in the 19th and
20th centuries, New York, Frederick A. Praeger Publishers.
Chase, A. (1987) Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First
National Parks, San Diego, Harcourt Brace Janovich Publishers.
Chiesura, A. (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 68, 129-138.
Cicchetti, C. J. (1971) Some economic issues in planning urban recreation facilities.
Land Economics, 47, 14-23.

185
Coen, S. E. & Ross, N. A. (2006) Exploring the material basis for health:
characteristics of parks in Montreal neighborhoods with contrasting health
outcomes. Health and Place, 12, 361-371.
Conway, H. (1991) People's Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks
in Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cooke, R. U. (1984) Geomorphological Hazards in Los Angeles, London, George
Allen & Unwin.
Cosgrove, D. (1995) Habitable earth: Wilderness, empire and race in America. In
Rothenberg, D. (Ed.) Wild Ideas. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota
Press.
County of Los Angeles (1976) Baldwin Hills Regional County Park Environmental
Impact Report. Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles.
Cranz, G. (1978) Changing roles of urban parks: From pleasure gardens to open
space. Landscape, 22/23, 9-18.
Cranz, G. (1980) Women in urban parks. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 5, 79-95.
Cranz, G. (1982) The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks,
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Cranz, G. & Boland, M. (2003) The ecological park as an emerging type. Places, 15,
44-47.
Cranz, G. & Boland, M. (2004) Defining the sustainable park: a fifth model for
urban parks. Landscape Journal, 23, 102-120.
Crewe, K. (2001) Linear parks and urban neighborhoods: A study of the crime
impact of the Boston south west corridor. Journal of Urban Design, 6, 245-
264.
Crompton, J. L. & Kim, S.-S. (2004) Temporal changes in perceived constraints to
visiting State parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 160-182.
Cronon, W. (1996) The trouble with wilderness. In Cronon, W. (Ed.) Uncommon
Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York, W.W. Norton
and Company.

186
Cutter, S. C. (1981) Community concern for pollution: Social and environmental
influences. Environment and Behavior, 13, 105-124.
Cutter, S. L. (1995) Race, class and environmental justice. Progress in Human
Geography, 19, 111-122.
Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T. & Scott, M. S. (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of
people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90, 713-737.
Daily, G. C. (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems,
Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, New York,
Vintage Books.
Davis, M. (1996) How Eden lost its garden: A political history of the Los Angeles
landscape. In Scott, A. J. & Soja, E. W. (Eds.) The City: Los Angeles and
Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. Berkeley, University of
California Press.
Davis, M. (1998) Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster,
New York, Vintage Books.
Davis, M. (2002) Dead Cities: And Other Tales, New York, The New Press.
De Graaf, L. B. (1970) The city of black angels: Emergence of the Los Angeles
Ghetto, 1890-1930. Pacific Historical Review, 39, 323-352.
de Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003) Natural
environments - Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the
relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A,
35, 1717-1731.
Delaney, D. (1998) Race, Place and the Law, 1836-1948, Austin, University of
Texas Press.
Delaney, D. (2001) Making nature / marking humans: Law as a site of (cultural)
production. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 487-
503.
Delaney, D. (2002) The space that race makes. The Professional Geographer, 54, 6-
14.

187
Di Chiro, G. (1996) Nature as community: The convergence of environment and
social justice. In Cronon, W. (Ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the
Human Place in Nature. New York, W.W. Norton and Company.
Domene, E., Saurí, D. & Parés, M. (2005) Urbanization and sustainable resource use:
The case of garden watering in the metropolitan region of Barcelona. Urban
Geography, 26, 520-535.
Domosh, M. (1992) Controlling urban form: the development of Boston's Back Bay.
Journal of Historical Geography, 18, 288-306.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J. & Peterson, G. L. (Eds.) (1991) Benefits of Leisure, State
College, Pennsylvania.
Driver, F. (1988) Moral geographies: Social science and the urban environment in
Mid-Nineteenth Century England. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, NS, 13, 275-287.
Duncan, J. & Duncan, N. (2003) Can't live with them; can't landscape without then:
Racism and the pastoral aesthetic in suburban New York. Landscape Journal,
22, 88-98.
Dwyer, O. J. (1997) Geographical research about African Americans: A survey of
journals, 1911 – 1995. The Processional Geographer, 49, 441-450.
Endfield, G. H. & Nash, D. J. (2002) Missionaries and morals: climatic discourse in
Nineteenth-Century central Southern Africa. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 92, 727-742.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the
Third World., Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Escobar, A. (1999) After nature: Steps to an Anti-essentialist political ecology.
Current Anthropology, 40, 1-30.
Everhart, W. C. (1983) The National Park Service, Boulder, Co., Westview Press.
Eves, R. (2005) Unsettling settler colonialism: Debates over climate and colonization
in New Guinea, 1875-1914. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 304-330.
Ewert, A. W., Chavez, D. J. & Magill, A. W. (Eds.) (1993) Culture, Conflict and
Communications at the Wildlands-Urban Interface, Boulder, Westview
Press.

188
Ewing, R., Schmid, T, Killingsworth, R, Zlot, A, and Raudenbush, S. (2003)
Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity and
morbidity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 18, 47-69.
Eyler, A. A., Matson-Koffman, D., Vest, J. R., Evenson, K. R., Sanderson, B.,
Thompson, J. L., Wilbur, J. & Wilcox, S. (2002) Environmental, policy and
cultural factors related to physical activity in a diverse sample of women: The
women’s cardiovascular health network project – summary and discussion.
Women in Health, 36, 123-134.
Farber, S., Costanza, R. & Wilson, M. A. (2002) Economic and ecological concepts
for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, 375-392.
Feldman, E., McNeill, D. & Uriarte-Smith, S. (2001) Baldwin Hills Park Draft
Master Plan. Los Angeles, Community Conservancy International.
Fesenmaier, D. R. & Lieber, S. R. (1985) Spatial structure and behavior response in
outdoor recreation participation. Geografiska Annaler B, 67, 131-138.
Finney, N. & Rishbeth, C. (2006) Engaging with marginalised groups in public open
space research: the potential of collaboration and combined methods.
Planning Theory and Practice, 7, 27-46.
Fletcher, J. E. (1983) Assessing the impact of actual and perceived safety and
security problems on park use and enjoyment. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 1, 21-36.
Floyd, M. F. (1998) Getting beyond marginality and ethnicity: The challenge for race
and ethnic studies in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 3-22.
Floyd, M. F. (1999) Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System. Social
Science Research Review, 1, 1-24.
Floyd, M. F. (2001) Managing parks in a multicultural society: Searching for
common ground. Managing Recreation Use, 18, 41-51.
Floyd, M. F. & Gramann, J. H. (1993) Effects of acculturation and structural
assimilation in resource-based recreation: The case of Mexican-Americans.
Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 6-21.
Floyd, M. F., Gramann, J. H. & Saenz, R. (1993) Ethnic factors and the use of public
outdoor recreation areas: The case of Mexican Americans. Leisure Sciences,
15, 83-98.

189
Floyd, M. F. & Johnson, C. Y. (2002) Coming to terms with environmental justice in
outdoor recreation: A conceptual discussion with research implications.
Leisure Sciences, 24, 59-77.
Floyd, M. F., Outley, C. W., Bixler, R. D. & Hammitt, W. E. (1995) Effects of race,
environmental preference and negative affect on recreation preferences. In
National Recreation and Park Association (Ed.) Abstracts from the 1995
National Recreation and Park Symposium on Leisure Research. Arlington,
VA, National Recreation and Park Association.
Floyd, M. F. & Shinew, K. J. (1999) Convergence and divergence in leisure style
among Whites and African Americans: Towards an interracial contact
hypothesis. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 359-384.
Floyd, M. F., Shinew, K. J., McGuire, F. A. & Noe, F. P. (1994) Race, class and
leisure activity preferences: Marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of
Leisure Research, 26, 158-173.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. K. (1994) Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
Foley, J. & Ward, V. (1993) Recreation, the riots and a healthy L.A. Parks and
Recreation, March, 66-69.
Ford, L. R. & Griffin, E. (1981) Chicano park: personalizing an institutional
landscape (USA). Landscape, 25, 42-48.
Ford, R. T. (1995) The boundaries of race: Political geography in legal analysis. In
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G. & Thomas, K. (Eds.) Critical Race
Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York, The New
Press.
Foresta, R. (1984) America's urban national parks. Urbanism Past and Present, 18,
1-14.
Foster, M. S. (1999) In the face of "Jim Crow": Prosperous blacks and vacations,
travel and outdoor leisure, 1890-1945. The Journal of Negro History, 84,
130-149.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London, Allen
Lane.

190
Foucault, M. (1980) Two lectures: Truth and power. In Gordon, C. (Ed.) Power /
knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York,
Pantheon Books.
Frank, L. D. & Engelke, P. O. (2001) The built environment and human activity
patterns: exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of
Planning Literature, 16, 202-218.
Frank, L. D., Schmid, T L, Sallis, J F, Chapman, J, and Saelens, B E (2005) Linking
objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form:
Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,
28, 117-125.
French, J. S. (1973) The decline and deterioration of the American city park. In
Gray, D. & Pelegrino, D. A. (Eds.) Reflections on the Recreation and Park
Movement. Dubuque, Iowa, W.C. Brown Company.
French, V. F. (1970) Rancho La Cienega O Paso De La Tijera, Los Angeles, John
Roche.
Frumkin, H. (2005) Health, equity and the built environment. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 113, A290-A291.
Gagen, E. A. (2004) Making America flesh" physicality and nationhood in early
twentieth-century education reform. Cultural Geographies, 11, 417-442.
Gandy, M. (2002) Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City,
Cambridge, Ma., The MIT press.
Garcia, R., Flores, E. S. & Pine, E. (2002) Dreams of Fields: Soccer, Community and
Equal Justice, Report on Urban Parks to the California Department of Parks
and Recreation. Los Angeles, Center for Law in the Public Interest.
Garrard, J. (2003) Healthy revolutions: promoting cycling among women. Health
Promotion Journal of Australia, 14, 213-215.
Gearin, E. & Kahle, C. (2006) Teen and adult perceptions of urban green space in
Los Angeles. Children Youth and Environments, 16, 25-48.
Gobster, P. H. (1998) Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial
relations in neighborhood boundary parks. Landscape and Urban Planning,
41, 43-55.

191
Gobster, P. H. (2001) Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park
restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56, 35-51.
Gobster, P. H. (2002) Managing urban parks for racially and ethnically diverse
clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24, 143-159.
Gobster, P. H. (2005) Recreation and leisure research from an active living
perspective: Taking a second look at urban trail use data. Leisure Sciences,
27, 367-383.
Gold, S. (1977) Neighborhood parks: the non-use phenomenon. Evaluation Review,
1, 319-328.
Gold, S. (1978) Urban open space in the year 2000. Ekistics, 273, 447-451.
Gold, S. M. (1986) User characteristics and response to vegetation in neighbourhood
parks. Arboricultural Journal, 10, 275-287.
Goldsmith, J. (1994) Designing for diversity. National Parks, 68, 20-21.
Gollege, R. G. & Stimson, R. J. (1997) Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective,
New York, The Guildford Press.
Gomez, E. (2002) The ethnicity of public recreation participation model. Leisure
Sciences, 23, 21-34.
Gordon, D. L. A. (2002) Frederick G. Todd and the origins of the park system in
Canada's capital. Journal of Planning History, 1, 29-57.
Goss, J. D. (1996) Introduction to focus groups. Area, 28, 113-114.
Gotham, K. F. (2000) Urban space, restrictive covenants and the origins of racial
residential segregation in a US city, 1900-1950. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 24, 616-633.
Goudey, R. F. (1936) The Role of Water Supply in the Expansion of the City of Los
Angeles through Annexation. Los Angeles, Bureau of Water Works and
Supply.
Gould, P. & White, R. (1986) Mental Maps, Boston, Allen and Unwin.
Gray, D. E. (1973) The un-hostile park. In Gray, D. & Pelegrino, D. A. (Eds.)
Reflections on the Recreation and Park Movement. Dubuque, Iowa, W.C.
Brown Company.

192
Griffith, G. J. (1910) Parks, Boulevards and Playgrounds, Los Angeles, Prison
Reform League Publishing Company.
Grusin, R. (1998) Reproducing Yosemite: Olmstead, environmentalism and the
nature of aesthetic agency. Cultural Studies, 12, 332-359.
Gumprecht, B. (1999) The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death and Possible Rebirth,
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, C. M. & Page, S. J. (2002) The Geography of Tourism and Recreation,
London, Routledge.
Hall, S. (1980) Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. In UNESCO
(Ed.) Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism. Paris, UNESCO.
Hamilton, D. H. & Meehan, R. L. (1971) Ground rupture in the Baldwin Hills.
Science, 172, 333–344.
Hanink, D. M. & White, K. (1999) Distance effects in the demand for wildland
recreation services: the case of national parks in the United States.
Environment and Planning A, 31, 477-492.
Harnik, P. (2000) Inside City parks, Washington, D.C., The Urban Land Institute.
Hartman, D. (2001) Focus on midnight basketball and the cultural politics of
recreation, race and at-risk urban youth. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
25, 339–371.
Hayden, D. (1995) The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History,
Cambridge, Ma., The MIT Press.
Hayward, J. (1989) Urban parks: Research, planning and social change. In Altman, I.
& Zube, E. (Eds.) Public Places and Spaces. New York, Plenum Press.
Henderson, H. & Wall, G. (1979) Accessibility to urban open space. In Wall, G.
(Ed.) Recreational Land Use in Southern Ontario. Waterloo, Department of
Geography, University of Waterloo.
Henderson, K. A. & Bialeschki, M. D. (2005) Leisure and active lifestyles: Research
reflections. Leisure Sciences, 27, 335-365.
Hermansen, S. & Wynn, G. (2005) Reflections on the nature of an urban bog. Urban
History Review, 34, 9-27.

193
Hester Jr., R. T., Blazej, N. J. & Moore, I. S. (1999) Whose wild? Resolving cultural
and biological diversity conflicts in urban wilderness. Landscape Journal, 18,
137-146.
Heynen, N. (2003) The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest.
Antipode, 35, 980-998.
Heynen, N. (2006) Green urban political ecologies: toward a better understanding of
inner-city environmental change. Environment and Planning A, 38, 499-516.
Heynen, N. & Perkins, H. A. (2005) Scalar dialectics in green: Urban private
property and the contradictions of the neoliberalization of nature. Capitalism,
Nature, Socialism, 16, 99-113.
Higgins, J. W. (Ed.) (1958) A Guide to the Geology and Oil Fields of the Los
Angeles and Ventura Regions, Los Angeles, Pacific Section of American
Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Hingston, R. W. G. (1931) Proposed British national parks for Africa. Geographical
Journal, 77, 401-422.
Hise, G. & Deverell, W. (2000) Eden by Design, The 1930 Olmstead-Bartholomew
Plan for the Los Angeles Region, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Ho, C., Sasidharan, V., Elmendorf, W., Willits, F. K., Graefe, A. & Godbey, G.
(2005) Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation and
perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 281-306.
Hodgson, S. F. (1985) Oil & Gas in California. Los Angeles, California Department
of Conservation, Division of Oil & Gas.
Hodgson, S. F. (1988) Geothermal in California. Los Angeles, California
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas.
Holbrook, B. (1996) Shopping around: focus group research in North London. Area,
28, 136-142.
Hough, M. (1994) Design with city nature. In Platt, R. H., Rowntree, R. A. & Muick,
P. C. (Eds.) The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban
Biodiversity. Amherst, Ma., The University of Massachusetts Press.
Hougner, C., Colding, J. & Söderqvist, T. (2006) Economic valuation of a seed
dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological
Economics, 59, 364–374.

194
Huang, H., Hsiao, M. & Liu, H.-J. (2002) Collective action toward a sustainable city.
In Evans, P. (Ed.) Livable Cities: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and
Sustainability. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Hultsman, W. (1995) Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: an extention of the
exploration of dimensionality. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 228-244.
Hung, K. & Crompton, J. L. (2006) Benefits and constraints associated with the use
of an urban park reported by a sample of elderly in Hong Kong. Leisure
Sciences, 25, 291-311.
Hurley, A. (1995) Environmental Inequalities and Industrial Pollution in Gary,
Indiana, 1945-1980, Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Husbands, W. & Idahosa, P. (1995) Ethnicity and recreation behaviour: A review
and critique of the literature. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 27, 84-98.
Hutchison, R. (1987) Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, Blacks and Hispanics
in Chicago's public parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 205-222.
Hutchison, R. (1988) A critique of race, ethnicity, and social class in recent leisure-
recreation research. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 10-30.
Irwin, P. N., Gartner, W. C. & Phelps, C. C. (1990) Mexican-American / Anglo
cultural differences as recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences, 12,
335-348.
Jackson, E. L. (1993) Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: results from
alternative analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 129-149.
Jackson, E. L. (1997) In the eye of the beholder: A comment on Samdahl and
Jekubovich (1997), "A critique of leisure constraints: comparative analyses
and understandings". Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 458-468.
Jackson, E. L. & Witt, P. A. (1994) Change and stability in leisure constraints: a
comparison of two surveys conducted four years apart. Journal of Leisure
Research, 26, 322-336.
Jim, C. Y. (1989) Changing patterns of country-park recreation in Hong Kong.
Geographical Journal, 155, 167-178.
Johnson, C. Y. (1998) A consideration of collective memory in African American
attachment to wildland recreation places. Human Ecology Review, 5, 5-15.

195
Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., English, D. B. K. & Worthen, D. (1998) Wildland
recreation in the rural South: An examination of marginality and ethnicity
theory. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 101-120.
Johnson, S. (2005) Invisible Men: Buffalo Soldiers of the Sierra Nevada. National
Park Service.
Jones, K. R. & Wills, J. (2005) The Invention of the Park: From the Garden of Eden
to Disney's Magic Kingdom, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Kaplan, R. (2001) The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits.
Environment and Behavior, 33, 507-542.
Kaplan, R., Austin, M. E. & Kaplan, S. (2004) Open space communities: Resident
perceptions, nature benefits and problems with terminology. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 70, 300-312.
Katz, C. & Kirby, A. (1991) In the nature of things: the environment and everyday
life. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS, 16, 259-271.
Keil, R. (2003) Urban political ecology. Urban Geography, 24, 723–738.
Keil, R. & Desfor, G. (2003) Ecological modernization in Los Angeles and Toronto.
Local Environment, 8, 27-44.
Kenny, J. T. (1995) Climate, race, and imperial authority: the symbolic landscape of
the British hill station in India. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 85, 694-714.
Kerkvliet, J. & Nowell, C. (1999) Heterogeneous visitors and spatial limits of the
travel cost model. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 404-419.
Kleiber, D. A., Hutchison, S. L. & Williams, R. (2002) Leisure as a resource in
transcending negative life events: Self protection, self restoration and
personal transformation. Leisure Sciences, 24, 219-235.
Klein, N. M. & Schiesl, M. J. (Eds.) (1990) Twentieth Century Los Angeles: Power,
Promotion, and Social Conflict, Claremont, Regina Books.
Kobayashi, A. & Peake, L. (2000) Racism out of place: Thoughts on whiteness and
an antiracist geography in the new millennium. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 90, 392-403.

196
Koehler, D. H. & Wrightson, M. T. (1987) Inequality in the delivery of urban
services: A reconsideration of the Chicago Parks. The Journal of Politics, 49,
80-99.
Kong, L., Yuen, B., Sodhi, N. S. & Briffett, C. (1999) The construction and
experience of nature: perspectives of urban youths. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 90, 3-16.
Kornblum, W. (1983) Racial and cultural groups on the beach. Ethnic Groups, 5,
109-124.
Koskela, H. (1999) 'Gendered exclusions': Women's fear of violence and changing
relations to space. Geografiska Annaler B, 81, 111-124.
Kraus, R. (1969) Providing for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. Proceedings of
the Academy of Political Science, 29, 90-102.
Krenichyn, K. (2006) 'The only place to go and be in the city': women talk about
exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health and
Place, 12, 631-643.
Krueger, R. A. (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research,
Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Kuo, F. E. (2001) Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the
inner city. Environment and Behavior, 33, 5-34.
Lands, L. B. (2004) A reprehensible and unfriendly act: homeowners, renters and the
bid for residential segregation in Atlanta, 1900-1917. Journal of Planning
History, 3, 83-115.
Lasdun, S. (1992) The English Park: Royal, Private and Public, New York, The
Vendrome Press.
LaVonna, B. L., Sloane, D. C., Nascimento, L. M. & Diaman, A. L. (2005) African
Americans' access to healthy food options in South Los Angeles Restaurants.
American Journal of Public Health, 95, 668-673.
Lawrence, H. W. (1993) The greening of the squares of London: Transformation of
urban landscapes and ideals. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 83, 90-118.

197
Lee, J.-H., Scott, D. & Moore, R. L. (2002) Predicting motivations and attitudes of
users of a multi-use suburban trail. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 20, 18-37.
Lee, J., Scott, D. & Floyd, M. F. (2001) Structural inequalities in outdoor recreation
participation: A multiple hierarchy perspective. Journal of Leisure Research,
33, 427-449.
Lee, R. G. (1972) The social definition of outdoor recreation places. In Burch, W. R.,
Cheek, N. & Taylor, L. (Eds.) Social Behavior, Natural Resources and
Environment. New York, Harper Row.
Lehr, J. C. (2001) The origins and development of Manitoba's provincial park
system. Prairie Forum, 2, 241-256.
Lindsey, G., Maraj, M. & Kuan, S.-C. (2001) Access, equity and urban greenways:
An exploratory investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53, 332-346.
Lipietz, A. (1995) Green Hopes, The Future of Political Ecology, Cambridge, Polity
Press.
Lockwood, M. & Tracy, K. (1995) Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban
recreation park. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 155-167.
Los Angeles Times (2000) State pays record sum to help build LA park. Los
AngelesTimes.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1995) Urban form and social context: Cultural differentiation
in the uses of urban parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14,
89-102.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Stieglitz, O. (2002) Children in Los Angeles' parks: A study
of equity, quality and children's satisfaction with neighborhood parks. Town
Planning Review, 73, 467-488.
Lund, L. J. (1954) The design and construction of a major water supply project.
Department of Engineering. Los Angeles, University of Southern California.
Luymes, D. T. & Tamminga, K. (1995) Integrating public safety and use into
planning urban greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 391-400.
Madge, C. (1997) Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 88, 237-250.

198
Mahtani, M. (2001) Racial remappings: the potential of paradoxical space. Gender,
Place and Culture, 8, 299-305.
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P. & St. Leger, L. (2005) Healthy
nature healthy people, 'contact with nature' as an upstream health promotion
intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 45-54.
Manning, R. & More, T. (2002) Recreational values of public parks. The George
Wright Forum, 19, 21-30.
Mark, C. & Holmes, P. (1981) Potential visitor use of urban minority and
handicapped populations in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area. Woodland Hills, Ca., National Park Service.
Marne, P. (2001) Whose public space was it anyway? Class, gender and ethnicity in
the creation of Sefton and Stanley Parks, Liverpool: 1875-1872. Social and
Cultural Geography, 2, 421-443.
Martin, D. C. (2004) Apartheid in the great outdoors: American advertising and the
reproduction of a racialized outdoor leisure identity. Journal of Leisure
Research, 36, 513-535.
Matless, D. (1997) Moral geographies of English landscape. Landscape Research,
22, 141-155.
Matless, D. (1998) Landscape and Englishness, London, Reaktion Books.
Maver, I. (1998) Glasgow's public parks and the community, 1850-1914; A case
study in Scottish civic interventionism. Urban History, 25, 323-347.
May, J. & Rogerson, C. M. (1995) Poverty and sustainable cities in South Africa:
The role of urban cultivation. Habitat International, 19, 165-181.
McCarthy, J. (2002) First world political ecology: Lessons from the wise use
movement. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1281-1302.
McChesney, J., Gerken, M. & McDonald, K. (2005) Reaching out to Hispanics in
recreation. Parks and Recreation, 40, 74-78.
McCleave, J., Espiner, S. & Booth, K. (2006) The New Zealand people-park
relationship: An exploratory model. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 547-
561.

199
McClung, W. A. (2000) Landscapes of Desire: Anglo Mythologies of Los Angeles,
Berkeley, University of California Press.

McDonald, A. D. & Newcomer, R. J. (1973) Differences in the perception of a city
park as a supportive or threatening environment. In Gray, D. & Pelegrino, D.
A. (Eds.) Reflections on the Recreation and Park Movement. Dubuque, Iowa,
W.C. Brown Company.
McGuire, F. A., O'Leary, J. T., Alexander, P. B. & Dottavio, F. D. (1987) A
comparison of outdoor recreation preferences and constraints of black and
white elderly. Activities, Adaptation and Aging, 9.
McInroy, N. (2000) Urban regeneration and public space: The story of an urban
park. Space and Polity, 4, 23-40.
McIntire, E. (1981) The un-making of a park concept. Transition: The Quarterly
Journal of Socially and Ethically Responsible Geographers, 11, 7-12.
McIntyre, N., Cuskelly, G. & Auld, C. (1991) The benefits of urban parks: A market
segmentation approach. Australian Parks and Recreation, 27, 11-18.
McKay, R. B. (1954) Segregation and public recreation. Virginia Law Review, 40,
697-731.
McKenna, J. (2002) Health and greening the city: new visions for health promoters.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 896.
Meeker, J. W., Woods, W. K. & Lucas, W. (1973) Red, white and black in the
national parks. The North American Review, Fall, 3-7.
Mels, T. (2002) Nature, home, and scenery: the official spatialities of Swedish
national parks. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20, 135-
154.
Menéndez, J. F. R. (1998) Nature and the city: The Parque del Oeste and the
expansion of nineteenth-century Madrid. Urban History, 25, 189-210.
Merchant, C. (1996) Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World, New York,
Routledge.
Meyer, H. D. (1942) A preview of community recreation. Social Forces, 20, 357-
363.

200
Miller, V., Hallstein, M. & Quass, S. (1996) Feminist politics and environmental
justice. In Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. & Wangari, E. (Eds.) Feminist
Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences. London, Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (1995) The end of public space? People's Park, definitions of the public,
and democracy. Annals - Association of American Geographers, 85, 108-133.
Mitchell, D. (1996) The Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the California
Landscape, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Mitchell, D. (2002) Cultural landscapes: The dialectical landscape - Recent
landscape research in human geography. Progress in Human Geography, 26,
381-390.
Mitchell, D. (2003) Cultural landscapes: Just landscapes or landscapes of justice?
Progress in Human Geography, 27, 787-796.
Mitchell, D. (2006) Go slow: An afterword on landscape and justice. Norsk
Geografisk Tidsskrift, 60, 123-127.
Mitchell, D. & Staeheli, L. A. (2005) Turning social relations into space: Property,
law and the plaza of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Landscape Research, 30, 361-
378.
Mitchell, L. S. & Lovingood, P. E. (1976) Public urban recreation: an investigation
of spatial relationships. Journal of Leisure Research, 8, 6-20.
Moldauer, B. (1991) The Ecosystem of Oil. Washington, DC, American Petroleum
Institute.
Moore, R. L. & Scott, D. (2004) Place attachment and context: Comparing a park
and a trail within. Forest Science, 48, 877-884.
More, T. & Stevens, T. (2000) Do user fees exclude low-income people from
resource-based recreation? Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 341-357.
More, T. A. (1999) A functionalist approach to user fees. Journal of Leisure
Research, 31, 227-244.
More, T. A. (2002) The marginal user as the justification for public recreation: A
rejoinder to Crompton, Driver and Dustin. Journal of Leisure Research, 34,
103-118.

201
Morgan, D. L. & Krueger, R. A. (1993) When to use focus groups and why. In
Morgan, D. L. (Ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the
Art. Newbury Park, Sage Publications.
Moss, R. (1996) Not quite paradise: the development of the African American
Community in Los Angeles through 1950. California History, 75, 222-235.
Mowen, A. J., Payne, L. L. & Scott, D. (2005) Change and stability in park
visitation: constraints revisited. Leisure Sciences, 27, 191-204.
Mozingo, J. (2000) Activists try to turn Baldwin Hills into a park: recreation—
proposed open space would be bigger than San Francisco’s Golden Gate
Park. Los Angeles Times. home ed. Los Angeles.
Mozingo, J. (2001a) Crowd turns out against power plant. Los Angeles Times. Los
Angeles.
Mozingo, J. (2001b) Energy company abandons plans for Baldwin Hills Plant. Los
Angeles Times.
Mozingo, J. (2001c) A fight for their goal; their gains. Los Angeles Times. home edn
ed. Los Angeles.
Mozingo, J. (2001d) Plan for Baldwin Hills power plant attacked. Los Angeles
Times.
Mustafa, D. (2002) Linking access and vulnerability: Perceptions of irrigation and
flood management in Pakistan. Professional Geographer, 54, 94-105.
Nash, C. (1996) Reclaiming vision: looking at landscape and the body. Gender,
Place and Culture, 3, 149-169.
Nast, H. J. (2006) Puptowns and wiggly fields: Chicago and the racialization of pet-
love in the twentyfirst century. In Schein, R. H. (Ed.) Landscape and Race in
the United States. New York, Routledge.
National Park Service (1975) Gateway National Recreation Area. Special Study: The
1974 Summer Season. New York, National Park Service.
Neumann, R. P. (1996) Dukes, earls and ersatz Edens: Aristocratic nature
preservationists in colonial Africa. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space, 14, 79-98.

202
Nicholls, S. (2001) Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case
study using GIS. Managing Leisure, 6, 201-219.
Nickel, J. W. (1997) The liberty dimension of historic and contemporary segregation.
Law and Philosophy, 16, 259-277.
Niepoth, W. (1973) Users and non-users of recreation and park services. In Gray, D.
& Pelegrino, D. A. (Eds.) Reflections on the recreation and park movement.
Dubuque, Iowa, W.C. Brown Company.
Nies, M. A., Vollman, M. and Cook, T. (1999) African-American women’s
experiences with physical activity in their daily lives. Public Health Nursing,
16, 23-31.
Noe, F. P. & Snow, R. (1989/90) Hispanic cultural influence on environmental
concern. Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 27-34.
Nuru, M. & Konschink, K. (2000) Taking the lead in building community: San
Francisco league of urban gardeners. Race, Poverty and the Environment, 7,
50-51.
Oguz, D. (2000) User survey's of Ankara's urban parks. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 52, 165-171.
Oltremari, J. V. & Jackson, R. G. (2006) Conflicts, perceptions, and expectations of
indigenous communities associated with natural areas in Chile. Natural Areas
Journal, 26, 215-220.
Olwig, K. R. (1996) Reinventing common nature: Yosemite and Mount Rushmore -
a meandering tale of double nature. In Cronon, W. (Ed.) Uncommon ground:
Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York, W.W. Norton and
Company.
Olwig, K. R. (2005) Representation and alienation in the political land-scape.
Cultural Geographies, 12, 19-40.
Optow, S. & Clayton, S. (1994) Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the
natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 1-11.
Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, A. J., Payne, L. L. & Godbey, G. (2004) The interaction
of stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults. Journal
of Leisure Research, 36, 232-256.

203
Ouroussoff, N. (2001) Commentary: a much needed park may go up in smoke. Los
Angeles Times. home edn ed. Los Angeles.
Park, J. (1981) Final Environmental Impact Report for Baldwin Hills Regional Park.
Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.
Parks, S. E., Housemann, R. A. & Brownson, R. C. (2003) Differential correlates of
physical activity in urban and rural adults of various socio-economic
backgrounds in the United States. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 57, 29-35.
Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R. & Sadd, J. L. (2005) The air is always cleaner on the
other side: Race, space and ambient air toxics exposures in California.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 27, 127-148.
Pastor, M., Sadd, J. L. & Hipp, J. (2001) Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority
move-in, and environmental justice. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 1-21.
Patmore, J. A. (1983) Recreation and Resources: Leisure Patterns and Leisure
Places, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Paulson, D. (1982) Stay out, the water's fine: Desegregating municipal swimming
facilities in St. Petersburg, Florida. Tampa Bay History, 4, 6-16.
Pavlikakis, G. E. & Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2006) Perceptions and preferences of the local
population in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace National Park in Greece.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 1-16.
Payne, L. L., Mowen, A. J. & Orsega-Smith, E. (2002) An examination of park
preferences and behaviors among urban residents: The role of residential
location, race and age. Leisure Sciences, 24, 181-198.
Peake, L. & Ray, B. (2001) Racializing the Canadian landscape: whiteness, uneven
geographies and social justice. The Canadian Geographer, 45, 180-186.
Peet, R. & Watts, M. (1996) Liberation ecology: development, sustainability and
environment in an age of market triumphalism. In Peet, R. & Watts, M.
(Eds.) Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements.
London, Routledge.
Pendleton, L. & Mendelsohn, R. (2000) Estimating recreation preferences using
hedonic travel cost and random utility models. Environmental and Resource
Economics, 17, 89-108.

204
Perez-Verdin, G., Lee, M. E. & Chavez, D. J. (2004) Outdoor recreation in a
protected area in Southern Durango, Mexico: Analysis of local residents'
perceptions. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 897-910.
Perhac, R. M. (1999) Environmental justice: The issue of disproportionality.
Environmental Ethics, 21, 81-92.
Pezzoli, K. (2000) Human Settlements and Planning for Ecological Sustainability,
Cambridge, Ma., The MIT Press.
Pezzoli, K. (2002) Sustainability, livelihood and community mobilization in the
Ajusco "ecological reserve". In Evans, P. (Ed.) Livable Cities: Urban
Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability. Berkeley, University of
California Press.
Philipp, S. F. (1997) Race, Gender and Leisure Benefits. Leisure Sciences, 19, 191-
207.
Philipp, S. F. (1999) Are we welcome? African-American racial acceptance in
leisure activities and the importance given to children's leisure. Journal of
Leisure Research, 31, 385-403.
Pincetl, S. (2003) Non-profits and park provision in Los Angeles: An exploration of
the rise of governance approaches to the provision of local services. Social
Science Quarterly, 84, 979-1001.
Pincetl, S. & Gearin, E. (2005) The reinvention of public green space. Urban
Geography, 26, 365-384.
Pincetl, S. S. (1999) Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and
Development, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Potts, D. (2000) Environmental myths and narratives: case studies from Zimbabwe.
In Stott, P. & Sullivan, S. (Eds.) Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power.
London, Arnold.
Power, G. (1983) Apartheid Baltimore style: the residential segregation ordinances
of 1910-1913. Maryland Law Review, 42, 289-330.
Press, D. (2002) Saving Open Space: The Politics of Local Preservation in
California, Berkeley, University of California Press.

205
Proctor, J. D. & Pincetl, S. (1996) Nature and the reproduction of endangered space:
the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest and Southern California.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14, 683–708.
Pulido, L. (2000) Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban
development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90, 12-40.
Pulido, L., Sidawi, S. & Vos, R. O. (1996) An archaeology of environmental racism
in Los Angeles. Urban Geography, 17, 419-439.
Quan-Wickham, N. (1998) Cities sacrificed on the altar of oil: popular opposition to
oil development in 1920s Los Angeles. Environmental History, 3, 189–209.
Rabkin, S. (1954) Racial desegragation in places of public accommodation. The
Journal of Negro Education, 23, 249-261.
Rasmussen, C. (1994) L.A. scene: the city then and now. Los Angeles Times. Metro
News ed.
Rasmussen, C. (1996) Curbside L.A.: An Offbeat Guide to the City of Angels from
the Pages of the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times.
Ravenscroft, N. & Markwell, S. (2000) Ethnicity and the integration and exclusion
of young people through urban park and recreation provision. Managing
Leisure, 5, 135-150.
Reynolds, K. D., Wolch, J., Byrne, J., Chou, C.-P., Feng, G., Weaver, S. & Jerrett,
M. (2007) Trail characteristics as correlates of urban trail use. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 335-345.
Richards, T. (2000) N5. Bundoora, Victoria, Australia, QSR International Pty. Ltd.
Rishbeth, C. (2001) Ethnic minority groups and the design of public open space: an
inclusive landscape? Landscape Research, 26, 351-366.
Robbins, P. (2004) Political Ecology: a Critical Introduction, Malden, Ma.,
Blackwell Publishing.
Roberts, N. S. & Rodriguez, D. A. (2001) Reaching out. National Parks, 78, 38-39.
Rocheleau, D. & Edmunds, D. (1997) Women, men and trees: gender, power and
property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development, 25, 1351-
1371.

206
Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. & Wangari, E. (Eds.) (1996) Feminist Political
Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, London, Routledge.
Rose, G., Kinnaird, V., Morris, M. & Nash, C. (1997) Feminist geographies of
environment, nature and landscape. In Group, W. a. G. S. (Ed.) Feminist
Geographies: Explorations in Diversity and Difference. Harlow, Essex,
Longman.
Rosenzweig, R. & Blackmar, E. (1992) The Park and the People, Ithaca, Cornell
University Press.
Ross, C. L. & Leigh, N. G. (2000) Planning, urban revitalization, and the inner city:
An exploration of structural racism. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 367-
380.
Ruddick, S. (1996) Constructing difference in public spaces: Race, class, and gender
as interlocking systems. Urban Geography, 17, 132-151.
Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., Auffrey, C., Whitaker, R. C., Burdette, H. L. &
Colabianchi, N. (2006) Measuring physical environments of parks and
playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S190-S207.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F. & Frank, L. D. (2003) Environmental correlates of
walking and cycling: findings from transportation, urban design and planning
literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 80-91.
Samdahl, D. M. & Jekubovich, N. J. (1997) A critique of leisure constraints:
comparative analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29,
430-452.
Sasidharan, V., Willits, F. & Godbey, G. (2005) Cultural differences in urban
recreation patterns: an examination of park usage and activity participation
across six population subgroups. Managing Leisure, 10, 19-38.
Savard, J.-P., Clergeau, P. & Mennechez, G. (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban
ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 131-142.
Schein, R. H. (1997) The place of landscape: a conceptual framework for
interpreting an American scene. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 87, 660-680.
Schein, R. H. (2002) Race, racism, and geography: Introduction. Professional
Geographer, 54, 1-5.

207
Schein, R. H. (Ed.) (2006) Landscape and Race in the United States, New York,
Routledge.
Schenker, H. M. (1996) Women's and children's quarters in Golden Gate Park, San
Francisco. Gender, Place and Culture, 3, 293-308.
Schroeder, H. (1983) Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites.
Leisure Sciences, 5, 221-230.
Schroeder, H. W. (1982) Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of
Arboriculture, 8, 317-322.
Schuyler, D. (1986) The New Urban Landscape: the Redefinition of City Form in
Nineteenth-Century America, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Schwartz, K. Z. S. (2006) "Masters in our native place": The politics of Latvian
national parks on the road from Communism to "Europe". Political
Geography, 25, 42-71.
Schwartz, Z. & Lin, L.-C. (2006) The impact of fees on visitation of national parks.
Tourism Management, 27, 1386-1396.
Scott, D. & Munson, W. (1994) Perceived constraints to park usage among
individuals with low incomes. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 12, 79-96.
Sellars, M. R. R. W. (1999) Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History,
New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
Shaull, S. L. & Gramann, J. H. (1998) The effect of cultural assimilation on the
importance of family-related and nature-related recreation among Hispanic-
Americans. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 47-63.
Shaw, S. M. (1994) Gender, leisure and constraint: Towards a framework for the
analysis of women’s leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 8-22.
Shearer, B. L. J. (1999) The Daily Aesthetic: A Multimedia Exploration of Leisure
and Recreation in Lexington's Segregated Urban Park System. Department of
Geography. Lexington, University of Kentucky.
Shi, M. (1998) From imperial gardens to public parks: the transformation of urban
space in early twentieth-century Beijing. Modern China, 24, 219-254.

208
Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F. & Parry, D. (2004) Understanding the relationship
between race and leisure activities and constraints: Exploring an alternative
framework. Leisure Sciences, 26, 181-199.
Shores, K. & Scott, D. (2007) The relationship of individual time perspective and
recreation experience preferences. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 28-59.
Sibley, D. (1999) Creating geographies of difference. In Massey, D., Allen, J. &
Sarre, P. (Eds.) Human Geography Today. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Sister, C., Wolch, J., Wilson, J., Linder, A., Seymour, M., Byrne, J. & Swift, J.
(2007) Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California: Park and
Open Space Resources in the Green Visions Plan Area. Los Angeles,
California, University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and
Center for Sustainable Cities.
Smardon, R. C. & Faust, B. B. (2006) Introduction: International policy in the
biosphere reserves of Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 74, 160-192.
Smith, L. (2004) The contested landscape of early Yellowstone. Journal of Cultural
Geography, 22, 3-26.
Smith, S. L. J. (1980) Intervening opportunities and travel to urban recreation
centers. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 296-308.
Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., Hewko, J. N. & Hodgson, M. J. (2004) Spatial accessibility
and equity of playgrounds in Edmonton, Canada. The Canadian Geographer,
48, 287-302.
South Carolina Department of Parks Recreation and Tourism (2007) State Park
Service, 1942-1967.
Spence, M. D. (1999) Dispossessing the wilderness: Indian removal and the making
of National Parks, New York, Oxford University Press.
Spirn, A. W. (1984) The Granite Garden, New York, Bison Books.
Spirn, A. W. (1996) Constructing nature: The legacy of Frederick Law Olmstead. In
Cronon, W. (Ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in
Nature. New York, W.W. Norton and Company.
Spotts, D. M. & Stynes, D. J. (1985) Measuring the public's familiarity with
recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 253-265.

209
Staeheli, L. A., Mitchell, D. & Gibson, K. (2002) Conflicting rights to the city in
New York's community gardens. GeoJournal, 58, 197-205.
Stanfield, R., Manning, R., Budruk, M. & Floyd, M. F. (2005) Racial discrimination
in parks and outdoor recreation: an empirical study. Northeastern Recreation
Research Symposium. Bolton Landing, New York, US Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station.
Starr, K. (2004) Foundation of a new kind of governance? Los Angeles Times. Los
Angeles.
State of California (1964) Investigation of the Failure of the Baldwin Hills Reservoir.
Los Angeles, State of California Department of Water Resources.
State of California (2002) Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan. In California Department
of Parks and Recreation & Baldwin Hills Conservancy (Eds.), California
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Steg, L. & Sievers, I. (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of
environmental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32, 250-269.
Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice,
London, Sage.
Stillwell, H. D. (1963) National parks of Brazil: A study in recreational geography.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 53, 391-406.
Stodolska, M. & Jackson, E. L. (1998) Discrimination in leisure and work
experienced by a White ethnic minority group. Journal of Leisure Research,
30, 23-46.
Stokowski, P. A. (2002) Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing
new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 368-382.
Storman, W. F. (1991) The ideology of the American urban parks and recreation
movement: Past and future. Leisure Sciences, 13, 137-151.
Stott, P. & Sullivan, S. (2000) Introduction. In Stott, P. & Sullivan, S. (Eds.)
Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power. London, Arnold.
Stouffer, S. A. (1940) Intervening opportunities: a theory relating to mobility and
distance. American Scoiological Review, 5, 845-867.

210
Stynes, D. J., Spotts, D. M. & Strunk, J. R. (1985) Relaxing assumptions about
perfect information in park visitation models. Professional Geographer, 37,
21-28.
Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs (1976) To Establish the Santa Monica Mountains and
Seashore Urban National Park, California, Washington, D.C., September 16,
1976, 1-79.
Sullivan, S. (2000) Getting the science right, or introducing science in the first place?
Local ‘facts’, global discourse—’desertification’ in north-west Namibia. In
Stott, P. & Sullivan, S. (Eds.) Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power.
London, Arnold.
Swanson, D. K. (2005) Parks for all people. The Trust for Public Land Newsletter,
Fall / Winter, 1-3.
Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N. & Woolley, H. (2003) Nature, role and value of green
space in towns and cities: An overview. Built Environment, 29, 94-106.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996) The city as a hybrid: on nature, society and cyborg
urbanization. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 7, 65-80.
Swyngedouw, E. (1999) Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the
production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890-1930. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 89, 443-465.
Swyngedouw, E. & Hynen, N. (2003) Urban political ecology, justice and the
politics of scale. Antipode, 35, 898-918.
Szczygiel, B. & Hewitt, R. (2000) Nineteenth-century medical landscapes: John H.
Rauch, Frederick Law Olmsted, and the search for salubrity. Bulletin of
Historical Medicine, 74, 708-734.
Talbot, J. F. & Kaplan, R. (1993) Preferences for nearby natural settings: ethnic and
age variations. In Gobster, P. (Ed.) Managing Urban and High-use
Recreation Settings. St. Paul, MN, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service.
Talen, E. (1998) Visualizing fairness: equity maps for planners. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 64, 22-38.

211
Talen, E. & Anselin, L. (1998) Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of
accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and planning A, 30, 595-
613.
Tarrant, M. A. & Cordell, H. K. (1999) Environmental justice and the spatial
distribution of outdoor recreation sites: An application of Geographic
Information Systems. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 18-34.
Taylor, D. E. (1989) Blacks and the environment: Towards an explanation of the
concern and action gap between blacks and whites. Environment and
behavior, 21, 175-205.
Taylor, D. E. (1999) Central Park as a model for social control: Urban parks, social
class and leisure behavior in Nineteenth-Century America. Journal of Leisure
Research, 31, 420-477.
Taylor, J. T. (1956) Desegregation in Loiisiana - 1956. The Journal of Negro
Education, 25, 262-272.
Taylor, W., C., Carlos Poston, W. S., Jones, L. & Kraft, M. K. (2006) Environmental
Justice: Obesity, Physical Activity, and Healthy Eating. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, 3, S30-S54.
The Chicago Commission on Race Relations (1922) The Negro in Chicago: A Study
of Race Relations and a Race Riot. Chicago, The University of Chicago
Press.
Thompson, K. W. (1998) Historic American parks and contemporary needs.
Landscape Journal, 17, 1-23.
Tierney, P. T., Dahl, R. & Chavez, D. J. (2001) Cultural diversity in use of
undeveloped natural areas by Los Angeles County residents. Tourism
Management, 22, 271-277.
Tierney, P. T., Dahl, R. F. & Chavez, D. J. (1998) Cultural diversity of Los Angeles
County residents using undeveloped natural areas. Albany, Ca., United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Timperio, A., Ball, K., Salmon, J., Roberts, R. & Crawford, D. (2007) Is availability
of public open space equitable across areas? Health and Place, 13, 335-340.
Timperio, A., Salmon, J., Telford, A. & Crawford, D. (2005) Perceptions of local
neighborhood environments and their relationship to childhood overweight
and obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 29, 170-175.

212
Tinsley, H. E. A., Tinsley, D. J. & Croskeys, C. E. (2002) Park usage, social milieu
and psychosocial benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from
four ethnic groups. Leisure Sciences, 24, 199-218.
Tittle, D. (2002) A Walk in the Park: Greater Cleveland's New and Reclaimed Green
Spaces, Athens, Ohio, Ohio University Press.
Trelsad, B. R. (1997) The Presidio Trust legislation: preservation or privatization?
Urban Ecosystems, 1, 135-153.
Troped, P. J., Saunders, R. P. & Pate, R. R. (2005) Comparisons between rail trail
users and non users and men and women's patterns of use in a suburban
community. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2, 169-180.
Tuttle Jr., W. M. (1996) Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919, Urbana,
University of Illinois Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1979) Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape
Research, 4, 17-23.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science, 224, 420-421.
Ulrich, R. S. & Addoms, D. L. (1981) Psychological and recreational benefits of a
residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13, 43-65.
Ulrich, R. S., Dimberg, U. & Driver, B. L. (1990) Psychophysiological indicators of
leisure consequences. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 154-166.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M.
(1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
Valentine, G. (1991) Women's fear and the design of public space. Built
Environment, 16, 288-303.
Virden, R. J. & Walker, G. J. (1999) Ethnic/racial and gender variations among
meanings given to, and preferences for, the natural environment. Leisure
Sciences, 21, 219-239.
Voorhees, C. C. & Rohm Young, D. (2003) Personal, social, and physical
environmental correlates of physical activity levels in urban Latinas.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25, 61-68.

213
Waley, P. (2005) Parks and landmarks: planning the Eastern Capital along Western
lines. Journal of Historical Geography, 31, 1-16.
Walton, D. W. & Bridgewater, P. (1996) Of gardens and gardeners. Nature and
Resources, 32, 15-19.
Wan, Z. (1993) Land use planning and reclamation of the Baldwin Hills Oil Field.
School of Architecture. Los Angeles, University of Southern California.
Warner, J. (2000) Global environmental security: an emerging ‘concept of control’?
In Stott, P. & Sullivan, S. (Eds.) Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power.
London, Arnold.
Washburn, R. F. (1978) Black underparticipation in wildland recreation: Alternative
explanations. Leisure Sciences, 2, 201-210.
Washington, F. B. (1928) Recreation facilities for the Negro. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 140, 272-282.
Watts, M. (2000) Political ecology. In Johnston, R., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. & Watts,
M. (Eds.) The Dictionary of Human Geography. 4th ed. Oxford, Blackwell.
Wave Community Newspaper (2000) Baldwin Hills to be Site of Largest Urban Park
in State. Wave Community Newspaper. Los Angeles.
West, P. C. (1989) Urban region parks and black minorities: Subculture, marginality
and interracial relations in park use in the Detroit metropolitan area. Leisure
Sciences, 11, 11-28.
West, P. C. (1993) The tyranny of metaphor: Interracial relations, minority
recreation, and the wildlands-urban interface. In Ewert, A., Chavez, D. J. &
Magill, A. W. (Eds.) Culture, Conflict and Communication in the Wildlands-
Urban Interface. Boulder, Westview Press.
Westover, T. N. (1985) Perceptions of crime and safety in three midwestern parks.
Professional Geographer, 37, 410-420.
Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces, London, Sage.
While, A., Jonas, A. E. G. & Gibbs, D. (2004) The environment and the
entrepreneurial city: searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ in Manchester
and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, 549–
569.

214
White, W. F. (1918 / 1919) Chicago and its eight reasons. The Crisis: A Record of
the Darker Races, 17-18, 293-297.
Whitzman, C. (2002) Feminist activism for safer social space in High Park, Toronto:
How women got lost in the woods. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11,
299-321.
Wilkinson, S. (1998) Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the
co-construction of meaning. Women's Studies International Forum, 21, 111-
125.
Willems-Braun, B. (1997) Buried Epistemologies: The Politics of Nature in
(Post)colonial British Columbia. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 87, 3-31.
Williams, B. (2006) The paradox of parks. Global Identities in Culture and Power,
13, 139-171.
Williams, D. R. (2002) Leisure identities, globalization and the politics of place.
Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 351-367.
Willis, K. G. (2003) Pricing public parks. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 46, 3-17.
Wilson, A. (1991) The Culture of Nature: North American Landscape from Disney
to the Exxon Valdez, Toronto, Between the Lines.
Wiltshire, R., Crouch, D. & Azuma, R. (2000) Contesting the plot: environmental
politics and the urban allotment garden in Britain and Japan. In Stott, P. &
Sullivan, S. (Eds.) Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power. London,
Arnold.
Winqvist, G. & Aeschbacher, P. (2001) A prologue to the Cornfields. Critical
Planning, 8, 42-49.
Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P. & Fehrenbach, J. (2005) Parks and park funding in Los
Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography, 26, 4-35.
Wolcott, V. W. (2006) Recreation and race in the postwar city: Buffalo's 1956
Crystal Beach riot. The Journal of American History, 93, 1-.
Wolfe, R. I. (1964) Perspectives on outdoor recreation: A bibliographical survey.
Geographical Review, 54, 203-238.

215
Wolff, B., Knodel, J. & Sittitrai, W. (1993) Focus groups and surveys as
complementary research methods. In Morgan, D. L. (Ed.) Successful Focus
Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, Sage Publications.
Woodard, D. (1988) Class, regionality, and leisure among urban black Americans:
the post-civil rights era. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 87-105.
Woolley, H. (2006) Freedom of the city: Contemporary issues and policy influences
on children and young people's use of public open space in England.
Children's Geographies, 4, 45-59.
Yeo, B. S. A. & Teo, P. (1996) From Tiger Balm Gardens to Dragon World:
Philanthropy and profit in the making of Singapore's first cultural theme park.
Geografiska Annaler, 78B, 27-42.
Yergin, D. (1991) The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York,
Simon & Schuster.
Young, T. (1995) Modern urban parks. Geographical Review, 85, 535-551.
Young, T. (1996) Social reform through parks: the American Civic Association's
program for a better America. Journal of Historical Geography, 22, 460-472.
Young, T. (2001) Moral order, language and the failure of the 1930 recreation plan
for Los Angeles County. Planning Perspectives, 16, 333-356.
Young, T. (2004) Building San Francisco's Parks, 1850-1930, Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Yuen, B. (1996a) Creating the Garden City: the Singapore experience. Urban
Studies, 33, 955-970.
Yuen, B. (1996b) Use and experience of neighborhood parks in Singapore. Journal
of Leisure Research, 28, 293-311.
Zeller, R. A. (1993) Focus group research on sensitive topics: Setting the agenda
without setting the agenda. In Morgan, D. L. (Ed.) Successful Focus Groups:
Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, Sage.
Zhang, T. & Gobster, P. (1998) Leisure preferences and open space needs in an
urban Chinese-American community. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 15, 338-355.

216
Zimmerer, K. (2000) The reworking of conservation geographies: Nonequilibrium
landscapes and nature-society hybrids. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90, 256-369.
Zimmerer, K. S. & Bassett, T. J. (2003) Future directions in political ecology:
nature–society fusions and scales of interaction. In Zimmerer, K. S. &
Bassett, T. J. (Eds.) Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to
Geography and Environment-Development Studies. New York, Guildford
Press.
Zubrinsky, C. L. & Bobo, L. (1996) Prismatic metropolis: Race and residential
segregation in the City of Los Angeles. Social Science Research, 25, 335-
374.

217
Appendices
Appendix 1 Survey form

TO BE FILLED IN BY THE INTERVIEWER.
OFFICE USE ONLY

Trail survey site:_________________________________________________

Date/time of interview:_________________________________________________

Interviewer: _________________________________________________

1. Is this your first visit to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area (SMMNRA)?

Yes No

2a. Which of the following activities will you engage in, or have you engaged
in, during your visit today?
(Check all that apply)

Sightseeing
2a1

Hiking
2a2

Picnicking
2a3

Mountain biking
2a4

Bird watching
2a5

Walking dog(s)
2a6

Jogging
2a7

Camping
2a8

Horseback riding
2a9

Rock climbing
2a10

Painting/crafts
2a11

Photographing 2a12

Sunbathing 2a13

Wading/swimming 2a14

Other
2a15

(type?) ___________________

218

2b. Of these activities identified in question 2a, what were the three main
activities that you came to the SMMNRA to engage in?

Activity 1________________________
2b.1

Activity 2________________________
2b.2

Activity 3 ________________________
2b.3

3. Why did you choose to visit the SMMNRA today?
(Check all that apply)
To exercise 3a
To be outdoors
3b
To enjoy the quiet 3c
To breathe fresh air
3d

To see wildflowers
3e
To see/hear wildlife
3f
To enjoy scenic beauty
3g
To escape city/suburbs
3h
To commune with nature
3i
To experience fewer people 3j
To attend an organized event 3k
To undertake school research 3l
To engage in adventure sports 3m
To be with companion animals 3n
To socialize with family/friends 3o

To educate children about nature 3p

Other 3q
(type?)_________________________

219
4a. About how long will/did you spend on the trail today?______________ hrs.
IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST VISIT TO THE SMMNRA, PLEASE SKIP TO
QUESTION 6a.

4b. Is this the trail you normally visit in the SMMNRA?
Yes No
4c. Do you visit other SMMNRA trails?
Yes No
4d. If so, where?____________________________________________________
5a. How often do you visit the Santa Monica Mountains NRA?
______visits/month
5b. What time of year do you visit most? ______________ season
5c. What day of the week do you normally visit? ______________ day
5d. What time of day do you normally visit? morning
afternoon
evening
6a. Why would you choose to visit a local or neighborhood
community park instead of coming to the Santa Monica
Mountains NRA?
(Check all that apply)
Limited time
6a1

Easier access
6a2

Different recreation opportunities
6a3

Community gardening
6a4

Group recreation opportunities
6a5

See neighborhood friends
6a6

Easier to take children
6a7

Other (type )_________________________________ 6a8

220
6b. How often do you visit your local or neighborhood community
parks?
______________
visits/month
6c. What time of year do you visit most? ______________ season
6d. What day of the week do you normally visit? ______________ day
6e. What time of day do you normally visit? morning
afternoon
evening

7. Where does your knowledge of wildlife and/or plants in the Santa
Monica Mountains come from?
(Check all that apply)
Ranger-led nature walks
7a
School
7b
Park brochures
7c
Park signs
7d
Nature observation
7e

Books
7f

Magazines
7g

TV
7h

Previous visits
7i

Family / friends
7j
Live in the area
7k

Organized groups
7l

Other
7m

(type)__________________

221
8. In your opinion, the most important reason to protect the Santa Monica
Mountains is:
(select one only)
To provide recreational opportunities
8a

To provide habitat for plants and wildlife
8b

No opinion
8c

Other (type) _______________________________ 8d

9a. Do the activities or behaviors of other trail users affect your experience
at the Santa Monica Mountains NRA?
Yes
9a1
No
9a3

IF YOU ANSWERED NO TO QUESTION 9a, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 10a.
9b. If the activities or behaviors of other trail users do affect your
experience, identify how these user activities impact you.
(select one box only for each activity type)
Mountain biking Strongly positive
9b1

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion
Horseback riding Strongly positive
9b2

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion

222
Hiking Strongly positive
9b3

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion
Running/jogging Strongly positive
9b4

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion
Picnicking Strongly positive
9b5

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion
Dog walking Strongly positive
9b6

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion

223
Others (type)_________________________
Strongly positive
9b7

Somewhat positive
Neither positive nor negative
Somewhat negative
Strongly negative
No opinion
9c. For any user activities you selected in Question 9b as having a negative
impact on your experience, why do they present a problem to you?
(Check all that apply)
Damage plants
9c1

Uncooperative behavior (rude, obstructing trail, etc.)
9c2

Frighten wildlife
9c3

Startle people
9c4

Make too much noise
9c5

Litter
9c6

Scare horses
9c7

Leave animal wastes
9c8

Potential collisions/injury
9c9

Other (type)_____________________
9c10

10a. If you are a resident of the southern California region, approximately
how long did it take for you to get from home to the trail today?
________ minutes ________ hours
If you are not a Southern California resident, SKIP to Question 11.

224
10b. To determine the distance you live from the trail, what is the closest
major intersection to your home?
_____________________________________________________
Write intersection here
11. What is your residential zip code? _________________
12. How did you travel to the trail today? (select one only)
Car/truck/SUV/van 12a

Public transportation 12b

Group transportation (club/organization) 12c

Motorcycle/scooter 12d

Bicycle 12e

Walk/jog 12f

Horseback 12g

Other (type) _______________________ 12h

13. How many participants are in your group?
people ________
13a

pets/animals ________
13b

14. What type of group are you here with? (select one only)
Alone 14a

Family 14b

Friends 14c

Family & friends 14d

Religious organization / Church 14e

Youth Club 14f

Educational 14g

Other organization or club 14h

Other (type) _________________ 14i

225
15. What is your age? ________
16. What is your sex ? Female
16a
Male 16b

17a. Do you have children under 18 years of age? Yes No
17b. If you answered yes to question 17a, how many children under 18 years
of age do you have? ________
18. Which of the following best describes your household? (select one only)
Single 18a

Unrelated adults
18b

Couple without children under 18
18c

Single parent with children under 18
18d

Two parents with children under 18
18e

Multigenerational household
18f

19. Is your home: (select one only)
Owned by you or someone in your household?
19a

Rented?
19b

20. What is your highest level of educational attainment?
(select one only)
High school student
20a

No high school diploma or GED
20b

High school graduate or GED
20c

College
20d

21. Are you Hispanic or Latino?
Yes, Hispanic or Latino 21a

No, Not Hispanic or Latino 21b

226
22. What is your race?
(Check one or more races to indicate what you consider yourself to be)
American Indian or Alaska native 22a

Asian 22b

Black or African-American 22c

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 22d

White 22e

Do not wish to answer 22f

23a. What is your country of origin?_____________________________
Write country where you were born here
23b. If you were not born in the United States, how many years have you lived
in the USA? ________ years
24. What language(s) do you speak at home?______________________
Write language here
25. What is your household income? (select one only)
Less than $25,000 25a

$25,000 - $50,000 25b

$50,001 - $75,000 25c

$75,001 - $100,000 25d

$100,001 - $125,000 25e

$125,001 - $150,000 25f

$150,001 - $175,000 25g

$175,001 - $200,000 25h

Greater than $200,000 25i
Do not wish to answer 25j

227
26. Do you have a physical disability?
Yes No

27. Have you experienced any barriers to access at this location?
Yes No

28a. Have you experienced any barriers to access at other Santa Monica
Mountain NRA sites?
Yes No
28b. If yes, what are the barriers and where are they?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

That’s all the questions in the survey. Do you have any questions?
Thank you very much for your time and participation. Enjoy your trail visit.

PRIVACY ACT and PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement: 16 U.S.C.
1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park
managers to better serve the public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action
may be taken against you for refusing to supply the information requested.
Permanent data will be anonymous. Data collected through visitor surveys may be
disclosed to the Department of Justice when relevant to litigation or anticipated
litigation, or to appropriate Federal, State, local or foreign agencies responsible for
investigating or prosecuting a violation of law. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Burden estimate statement: Public reporting for this form is estimated to average 15
minutes per response. Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other
aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, WASO
Administrative Program Center, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, Washington,
D.C. 20240.

228
Appendix 2 Focus group questions

1. What types of recreational activities do you usually participate in? Are they
group-oriented activities (such as picnics or ball games) or more individual
pursuits (such as hiking, bird watching, etc.)? How often do you undertake
them? Where?
2. What benefits do you feel you get from recreation? From visiting parks or
green-space? Are they related to the experience of nature, opportunities to
socialize with friends or family, or chances to exercise? Other?
3. Do you feel that green-space such as parks should be provided for people
and recreational activities or for habitat for plants and animals? What are the
reasons for this?
4. You told us that you do not use the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area. Have you ever visited this place? Why don’t you frequent
this park?
5. Have you ever encountered any difficulties in accessing any parks in Los
Angeles? If so, what kinds of things made it hard for you to access this place?
What about the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area - have
you ever encountered any difficulties in accessing that park?
6. Have you ever experienced any conflict / problems with other users of parks
in Los Angeles? If so, what kinds of conflict or problems?
7. Do you think that there is enough greenspace in LA? What kinds of
improvements could be made to improve your access to urban greenspace /
nature areas in Los Angeles? Would you consider joining a community-based
organization to work for such improvements? What are the reasons for this?

229
Appendix 3 Simplified focus group coding tree

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Phoenix rising: Arizona and the origins of modern conservative politics

PDF

Creating cities and citizens: municipal boundaries, place entrepreneurs, and the production of race in Los Angeles county, 1926-1978

PDF

Delimiting the postmodern urban center: an analysis of urban amenity clusters in Los Angeles

PDF

Towards a politics of perfect disorder: carceral geographies, queer criminality, and other ways to be

PDF

Episodes in the life of a place: regional racial formation in Los Angeles's San Gabriel Valley

PDF

AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform

PDF

Species distribution modeling to predict the spread of Spartium junceum in the Angeles National Forest

Asset Metadata

Creator Byrne, Jason Antony (author)

Core Title The role of race in configuring park use: a political ecology perspective

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Geography

Degree Conferral Date 2007-12

Publication Date 10/09/2007

Defense Date 09/07/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Baldwin Hills,environmental justice,Landscape,Los Angeles,National parks,Nature,OAI-PMH Harvest,political ecology,Race,Santa Monica Mountains,urban parks

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), mountains: Baldwin Hills (geographic subject), mountains: Santa Monica Mountains (geographic subject), parks: Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (geographic subject), USA (countries), Ventura (counties)

Language English

Advisor Wolch, Jennifer R. (committee chair), Ethington, Philip J. (committee member), Pulido, Laura (committee member)

Creator Email Jason.Byrne@griffith.edu.au

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m856

Unique identifier UC1164906

Identifier etd-Byrne-20071009 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-582703 (legacy record id),usctheses-m856 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Byrne-20071009.pdf

Dmrecord 582703

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Byrne, Jason Antony

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu