Green space Access to the Disadvantaged using Park Service Area Analysis: A Study of Bhubaneswar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37506/cyt1m019Keywords:
Urban green spaces, Disadvantaged community, Environmental justice, BhubaneswarAbstract
Urban green spaces (UGS) are widely recognized for their significant health and well-being benefits. However,
recent research highlights increasing disparities in access to these spaces, particularly among disadvantaged
groups. This study investigates the accessibility of UGS for disadvantaged community groups in Bhubaneswar,
Odisha, India.
Methods: Disadvantaged communities, particularly slum settlements, were identified using high-resolution
satellite imagery. Data on urban green spaces were sourced from previous studies. A network analysis was
conducted in QGIS to delineate Park Service Areas (PSAs) using a 500-meter walking distance threshold from
park entry points, assessing the accessibility of urban green spaces.
Results: Among Bhubaneswar’s 67 wards, approximately 42 wards demonstrated that only 0–25% of slum areas
fall within a 500-meter PSA. In 8 wards, 25–50% of slum areas were covered. Notably, only 9 wards showed
75–100% coverage of slum areas by PSA. These findings reveal a significant deficit in UGS access for slum dwellers
and residents of informal settlements.
Conclusion: This study underscores the urgent need for spatially equitable planning of urban green spaces. The
findings can inform urban planners and landscape designers in optimizing the distribution of green spaces and
strategically placing park entry points to enhance accessibility for marginalized communities.
References
1. Brown RE, Sharma AM, Ardern CI, Mirdamadi P,
Kuk JL. Secular differences in the association between
caloric intake, macronutrient intake, and physical
activity with obesity. Obesity Research & Clinical
Practice. 2016;10(3):243–255.
2. Lee JE, Pope Z, Gao Z. The role of youth sports in
promoting children’s physical activity and preventing
pediatric obesity: a systematic review. Behavioral
Medicine. 2018;44(1):62–76.
3. Sallis JF, Floyd MF, Rodríguez DA, Saelens BE. Role
of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and
cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2012;125(5):729–
737.
4. Cortinovis C, Zulian G, Geneletti D. Assessing naturebased
recreation to support urban green infrastructure
planning in Trento (Italy). Land. 2018;7(4):112.
5. Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity
relationships with community design, physical
activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 2004;27(2):87–96.
6. Veitch J, Christian H, Carver A, Salmon J. Physical
activity benefits from taking your dog to the park.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 2019;185:173–179.
7. Mukherjee A, Mazumder K, Kaushal V, Ghoshal S.
Effect of supportive psychotherapy on mental health
status and quality of life of female cancer patients
receiving chemotherapy for recurrent disease. Indian
Journal of Palliative Care. 2017;23(4):399.
8. Sugiyama T, Leslie E, Giles-Corti B, Owen N.
Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical
and mental health: do walking, social coherence and
local social interaction explain the relationships? J of
Epidemiology & Community Health. 2008;62(5):e9.
9. Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Daily GC. The impacts of
nature experience on human cognitive function and
mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences. 2012;1249(1):118–136.
10. Douglas JW, Evans KL. An experimental test of the
impact of avian diversity on attentional benefits and
enjoyment of people experiencing urban green-space.
People and Nature. 2022;4(1):243–259.
11. Tan PY, Samsudin R. Effects of spatial scale on
assessment of spatial equity of urban park provision.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 2017;158:139–154.
12. Crawford D, Timperio A, Giles-Corti B, Ball K, Hume
C, Roberts R, et al. Do features of public open spaces
vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic
status? Health & Place. 2008;14(4):889–893.
13. Estabrooks PA, Lee RE, Gyurcsik NC. Resources for
physical activity participation: Does availability and
accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic
status? Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003;25(2):100–
104.
14. Moore LV, Diez Roux AV, Evenson KR, McGinn AP,
Brines SJ. Availability of recreational resources in
minority and low socioeconomic status areas. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;34(1):16–22.
15. Vaughan KB, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA,
Besenyi GM, Bergstrom R, Heinrich KM. Exploring the
distribution of park availability, features, and quality
across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/
ethnicity: An environmental justice investigation.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2013;45(S1):28–38.
16. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space,
public health, and environmental justice: The challenge
of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and
Urban Planning. 2014;125:234–244.
17. Gilliland J, Holmes M, Irwin JD, Tucker P.
Environmental equity is child’s play: Mapping
public provision of recreation opportunities in urban
neighbourhoods. Vulnerable Children and Youth
Studies. 2006;1(3):256–268.
18. Lee RE, Cubbin C, Winkleby M. Contribution of
neighbourhood socioeconomic status and physical
activity resources to physical activity among women.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
2007;61(10):882–890.
19. Nicholls S. Measuring the accessibility and equity
of public parks: A case study using GIS. Managing
Leisure. 2001;6(4):201–219.
20. Xiao Y, Wang Z, Li Z, Tang Z. An assessment of urban
park access in Shanghai – Implications for the social
equity in urban China. Landscape and Urban Planning.
2017;157:383–393.
21. Abercrombie LC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Frank LD,
Saelens BE, Chapman JE. Income and racial disparities
in access to public parks and private recreation
facilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
2008;34(1):9–15.
22. Dolan SA, Jarman B, Bajekal M, Davies PM,
Hart D. Measuring disadvantage: changes in the
underprivileged area, Townsend, and Carstairs scores
1981–91. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health. 1995;49(Suppl 2):S30–S33.
23. Townsend P. Poverty in the United Kingdom: A
survey of household resources and standards of living.
Berkeley: University of California Press; 1979.
24. Chimankar DA. Urbanization and condition of urban
slums in India. Indonesian Journal of Geography.
2016;48(1):28–36.
25. Islam J, Ali MJ, Mithun S. Slums in India: Making sense
of place in urban planning. GeoJournal. 2022;87:1913–
1928.
26. Taubenböck H, Kraff NJ. The physical face of slums:
A structural comparison of slums in Mumbai, India,
based on remotely sensed data. Journal of Housing
and the Built Environment. 2014;29(1):15–38.
27. Sister C, Wolch J, Wilson J. Got green? Addressing
environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal.
2010;75(3):229–248.
28. Nissanke M, Thorbecke E. Comparative analysis of the
globalization-poverty nexus in Asia, Latin America,
and Africa. World Development. 2010;38(6):797–802.
29. Pieters J. Growth and inequality in India: Analysis
of an extended social accounting matrix. World
Development. 2010;38(3):270–281.
30. Sathyakumar V, Ramsankaran R, Bardhan R. Linking
remotely sensed urban green space distribution
patterns and socio-economic status – A multi-scale
probabilistic analysis based in Mumbai, India.
GIScience& Remote Sensing. 2019;56(5):645–669.
31. Kalia R. Bhubaneswar: contrasting visions in
traditional Indian and modern European architecture.
Journal of Urban History. 1997;23(2):164–191.
32. Anand G, Deb A. Planning, ‘Violations,’ and Urban
Inclusion: A Study of Bhubaneswar. New Delhi:
YUVA; 2017.
33. Dash M, Chakraborty M. Distribution of green
spaces across socio-economic groups: a study of
Bhubaneswar, India. Journal of Architecture and
Urbanism. 2023;47(1):57–67.
34. Spangler KR, Brochu P, Nori-Sarma A, Milechin D,
Rickles M, Davis B, et al. Calculating access to parks
and other polygonal resources: a description of opensource
methodologies. Spatial and Spatio-temporal
Epidemiology. 2023;47:100606.
35. Owen KK, Wong DW. An approach to differentiate
informal settlements using spectral, texture,
geomorphology and road accessibility metrics.
Applied Geography. 2013;38:107–118.
36. Niebergall S, Loew A, Mauser W. Integrative
assessment of informal settlements using VHR remote
sensing data—The Delhi case study. IEEE Journal of
Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and
Remote Sensing. 2008;1(3):193–205.
37. Baud I, Kuffer M, Pfeffer K, Sliuzas R, Karuppannan
S. Understanding heterogeneity in metropolitan India:
The added value of remote sensing data for analyzing
sub-standard residential areas. International Journal
of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation.
2010;12(5):359–374.
38. Boone CG, Buckley GL, Grove JM, Sister C. Parks and
people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore,
Maryland. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers. 2009;99(4):767–787.
39. Wolch J, Wilson JP, Fehrenbach J. Parks and park
funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis.
Urban Geography. 2005;26(1):4–35.
40. Datey A, Darji V, Patel T, Mahadevia D. Walking and
cycling in Indian cities: A struggle for reclaiming road
edges. Center for Urban Equality; 2012.
41. Germann-Chiari C, Seeland K. Are urban green
spaces optimally distributed to act as places for
social integration? Results of a GIS approach for
urban forestry research. Forest Policy and Economics.
2004;6(1):3–13.
42. Kabisch N, Haase D. Green justice or just green?
Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;122:129–139.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Monalipa Dash
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.