Here’s a common story: a city invests in renovating a park in a low-income, minority-majority neighborhood. There’s a new basketball court, freshly planted trees, and other things that residents asked for in community meetings. And yet, people still aren’t using the park as much as they could—why?

New research by social scientist Javier Otero Peña, a Ph.D. candidate in Environmental Psychology at the CUNY Graduate Center, may have an answer. In working to understand park usage in low-income neighborhoods in New York City, he learned that social access is sometimes more important than physical access. In this interview, Javier makes the case for taking a holistic approach to this complex problem.‍

Priscilla Posada (PP): What was the catalyst for your work in the field of public spaces?

Javier Otero Peña (JOP): I grew up in Caracas, Venezuela and about 15 years ago was living in a neighborhood with a long history of disinvestment in public spaces. At one point, there was a national strike and for over two months a large portion of the country was paralyzed. Neighbors started getting to know each other, something that had been rare, because in a city that is dangerous, people tend to be more reserved. 

Programming cultural events could dramatically change how people feel about their public spaces and even how they feel about themselves.

I started organizing concerts every two weeks in the local public square. People started coming out from nearby neighborhoods—they loved it. It was nice because part of our idea was to get people to care about their park. During the first events, I asked attendees to leave the square cleaner than we found it. At some point, whenever there was a concert and it ended around 8pm, neighbors from the surrounding buildings would come down with a broom and a bag without me saying anything. That's where I realized the power of places. Programming cultural events could dramatically change how people feel about their public spaces and even how they feel about themselves.

But, I didn’t have the tools then to understand what was happening. It was hard for me to tell the people who had resources, those in government or the private sector, “You have to do this, it's great, people are happy,” because they would ask, “What’s in it for me?” and I didn’t yet know how to put the benefits in those terms. 

I realized I needed to better understand what was happening and what the benefits were. I studied urban planning then sustainable development. Now, I’m doing my PhD in Environmental Psychology, which was the missing link. 

PP: Tell us about your most recent research.

‍JOP: My first paper examines the relationship between the physical and social environment of a park and park usage in low-income New York City neighborhoods. Ironically, we found that, besides the number of amenities available in the park, the physical environment of the park and the neighborhood has very little to do with park usage. The most important thing is that there are activities and in the context of the neighborhood, social cohesion. In neighborhoods where there is a low level of trust between neighbors, which could be related to crime, disinvestment, heavy policing, lack of support, there will be lower park usage.

Where there is a low level of trust between neighbors... there will be lower park usage.

The social environment of parks is very important for park usage. We used the NYPD’s publicly available data on stop and frisk incidents. You could say that during some police stops “nothing happens”—there are no summons or arrests. However, if someone witnesses this or hears about a friend or neighbor getting stopped, it can affect their park use.

On the other hand, there’s actual crime. In an ethnographic study I am currently working on in low-income neighborhoods in New York City, some participants expressed fear of walking at night or even during the day. One described the situation as a “battle zone.”

In cases like this, creating a park isn’t enough. Other city departments would have to do their part. It also gets complicated: If there’s police presence, and the parks are nice, and there’s investment in the neighborhood. What happens next? Property values may go up, rents may go up, and then the people who are supposedly benefiting from this park and this safety may no longer be able to afford to live in these neighborhoods.

Even in places where there’s rent control and public housing and people can stay in their homes, there may be cultural displacement. You stop identifying with your neighborhood. There’s a lot of research going on about this, including Melissa Checker’s article, “Wiped out by the ‘Greenwave.’”

Most people interviewed were grateful for the new parks, and renovations, but some of them were afraid—not of police, not of crime, but of gentrification.‍

PP: From your findings, what makes a park more approachable to low-income and minority-majority communities?

JOP: There is no single formula. Qualitative research on public spaces is the only way that you can really understand how people feel, whether they feel welcome or alienated. My research takes an environmental justice angle. Access to recreation is a right that many people feel is not equally distributed in cities. 

It’s not just about adding parks, but how these parks fit into the local contexts of neighborhoods.

It’s not just about adding parks, but how these parks fit into the local contexts of neighborhoods. We need collaboration between city agencies. For example, in New York it would be helpful to have synergy between the parks department, the NYPD, and even NYCHA and the MTA. Many of the factors that make people feel unwelcome are out of reach for the people working with parks. They can only do so much. A complex problem such as access to parks requires a holistic approach.

For example, my data shows that some low-income people of color feel great about their parks, and yet some of them are scared to use them. Then you ask why. In some cases it’s due to crime, but in other cases, it's the police. They feel there’s too much surveillance: “You go and they bother you. They want to smell your can to make sure it’s not alcohol.”

How would you feel if this was your reality? People who are not targeted in this way might not understand what it’s like and how it would affect their park usage. ‍

PP: Why is research on park usage so important?

JOP: People who have been deprived of public spaces will definitely take advantage of a new space. That's not the point. The point is that, because of the contextual stress, they may not be able to fully reap the benefits. 

If you have a very nice park with trees, and you're enjoying the fresh air, but then you go back home, and you have mold in your house, what benefits are you really getting? In order to improve the health of low-income residents, a new park isn’t enough. 

One single agency cannot do all the work. They have to act together towards the same goals: If there’s investment in a park, there could be coordination with the housing agency to freeze rents, so that this action doesn’t unintentionally harm the local community. 

This way people can relax. They can say, “I’m safe, I’m not going to have to move. I can enjoy my park.” ‍

Javier Otero Peña is a PhD candidate in Environmental Psychology at the Graduate Center, CUNY, and a research associate at the Public Space Research Group. Javier holds an MPh in Psychology from The Graduate Center, CUNY, and an MSc in Social and Economic Sciences from the Paris Catholic University.