Park system ratings for 2023 | Trust for Public Land ParkScore® rating system

I have been remiss in writing about the 2023 release of the Trust for Public Land national ratings of park systems, called ParkScore®.  

-- "How Does Your City’s ParkScore® Rating Stack Up?," TPL, 2023

In the past I've had issues with it, because DC is always rated highly--this year it's #1--but the reality is that 80% of "DC's" parks are run by the National Park Service, and its arguable about how successful NPS is at serving the local residents.  

-- "Lies, damn lies, and statistics: parks edition," 2012 
-- "Washington, DC, Named Best City Park System in 10th Annual ParkScore® index, Lifted by Strong Scores for Park Equity," TPL

Not to mention how DC lacks a systematic approach to parks and public space planning. DC produced a parks master plan, allegedly, about 6 years ago, but only an executive summary has been released.

-- "Five examples of the failure to do parks and public space master planning in DC," 2021

But the DC park plan summary is good, and acknowledges the importance of the National Park Service in providing park space. 

Separately, DC DPR did a playground improvement program a number of years ago, and initially I thought they should wait on a master plan.  

I was wrong because they ended up doing a good job, "sub-planning" the playground function, reconceptualizing what they offered, and actually following through with the construction of quality improvements.

ParkScore® uses this criteria for rating, which I believe has evolved from earlier studies:

• access
• investment
• amenities
• acreage
• equity.

For example, I don't think amenities were included originally, although it is a gross-grained measure:

• basketball hoops
• dog parks
• playgrounds
• restrooms
• recreation and senior centers (indoor facilities)
• splash pads.

According to an article in the Seattle Times on their ranking, "Seattle ranks among top 10 park systems in the country," the ParkScore® amenities measure is based on the conclusions of a journal article with findings about which park offerings (at the neighborhood park scale) have the greatest impact on park use and individual physical activity.

-- "The First National Study of Neighborhood Parks Implications for Physical Activity," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2016.

Except for the fact that most park systems lack the budget for serious research, the findings outlined in the article--they studied 174 neighborhood parks, ranging from 2+ acres to 20+ acres, in 25 cities, ranging from 100,000 to 1 million in population--provide a lot of useful guidance for thinking about how to improve activation, use, and participation.  From the article:

Park size was not significant after controlling Supervised activities and onsite marketing were significantly related to increased park use and MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity] person hours. Every additional supervised activity increased mean park use by 48% (β¼0.39, po0.0001) and the mean MVPA time by 37% (β¼0.37, po0.0001). The presence of marketing materials, such as banners, posters, and signs was associated with a 62% (β¼0.48, p¼0.003) increase in the number of park users and 63% (β¼0.49, po0.001) increase in MVPA person hours. Each additional accessible target area (e.g., basketball court, tennis court, play area) was associated with 2% more person hours of park use (β¼0.02, p¼0.03) and 2% more minutes of MVPA(β¼0.02, p¼0.006).

They used a measurement tool called System of Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC).  I wonder if it would be possible to work with local universities (in my case, the University of Utah) to study some local parks with this tool?

But definitely these results provide guidance on making decisions about how to promote a park and its activities, and whether or not to be more proactive in creating and delivering activities, focused on increasing use, and as a result greater physical activity and presumably, individual health benefits.