On Thursday, August 23rd, Professor Madhu Dutta-Koehler, Associate Professor of the Practice and Director, City Planning and Urban Affairs, Boston University, participated in a panel entitled “Parks for All: How City Parks Address Inequality,” hosted by the Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center at the Boston Public Library. Professor Dutta-Koehler, along with Theodore “Ted” C. Landsmark, Distinguished Professor, Public Policy and Urban Affairs; Director, Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northeastern University, Kevin Essington, Director, Southern New England Area at The Trust for Public Land, and Moderator Christopher Cook, Chief, Environment, Energy, and Open Space; Commissioner, Parks and Recreation, City of Boston, discussed both the barriers to developing green spaces in Boston and the positive impacts that these parks can exert in urban areas.

In her presentation, Professor Dutta-Koehler emphasized the importance of truly equitable distribution of green space and the right every citizen has to inhabit and participate in their community. Interpreting the French philosophy of the Right to the City, Professor Dutta-Koehler stressed that every person within a city must have a “collective right and collective power to transform the city,” not just have access to its parks and buildings. City planners must take the idea that people are central to planning policy, for, as she stated, “At the heart of every issue is the question of ‘what are you going to do for the people?’” As the numerous catastrophic impacts of climate change—rising sea levels, heat waves, more frequent and violent storm activity—become more common, understanding how these dangers affect city residents is of paramount importance.

Therefore, instead of looking at parks objectively or in isolation, one must think of how these spaces directly impact the people in those areas. While statistics may place Boston 13th in the nation for green space, this does not guarantee that such spaces are equally beneficial or equitably distributed among the community. For example, heat vulnerability is highest in the middle of the city in the neighborhoods of Mattapan, Roxbury, and Dorchester, where incomes and city outreach are lowest compared to the wealthier neighborhoods of Boston. As such, for a true Right to the City and effective green spaces, Professor Dutta-Koehler claims that “The Right to the City should ensure equitable distribution of green space.”

But equitable green space means much more than ensuring everyone has access to parks, for the quality of the parks is as important as their locations are. So while The Trust for Public Land’s mission for a park within a ten-minute walk of every person is an admirable goal, just because a park exists does not mean it functions to its full potential. Kevin Essington, area director for the Trust for Public Land, asks questions such as, “who do these parks serve? What is their age, income, and ethnicity?” in his work, seeking to ensure not only that parks are accessible to everyone, but also that all parks are enjoyable, welcoming, and functional spaces. In discussing why equity matters, Ted Landsmark, professor of public policy and director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, contributed how parks serve as areas of common ground, or “sites of collaborative advocacy to address inequalities.” With a more equitable distribution of high-quality, well-maintained parks, we can solve problems while bringing people together, combat isolation in cities, and join “our sense of beauty with our sense of community, along with the most extraordinary collection of people.”

In a Q&A session following the panel, Professor Dutta-Koehler and the others answered questions on how a city can achieve equitable allocation of green spaces in every sense of the word. Ensuring that parks are equitably distributed, of comparable, high value, and accessible is the first step towards a more robust park system in Boston. Something as simple as removing physical barriers to a park, such as changing the location of a door, can be immensely impactful. The panelists spoke of treating parks as infrastructure that must be maintained, rather than something that must be created new each time, to drive this process and make it more feasible. Once the parks are firmly established, programming can help attract people and drive the connections made there. However, as important as park events can be, the programming in parks is dwarfed by what the people do themselves. As Landsmark pointed out, “The people of Boston activate their own parks, and it serves as a tool against gentrification- it’s just up to us to give them the tools they need to do so.”

Watch the discussion at Parks for All: How City Parks Address Inequality

Hannah Dion, CAS ’20