Exploring Economic Insecurity and Green Space Equity in Los Angeles County

Public parks and outdoor areas are essential for thriving, healthy, and equitable communities. However, many areas in Los Angeles County lack high-quality green spaces. The disparities in park access often mirror broader social inequities: neighborhoods with fewer parks tend to be working-class, while those with the most parks are generally more affluent. Residents in lower-income, park-deficient areas are also more likely to be Latinx or Black, children, linguistically isolated, renters, and living in multifamily housing. To effectively address park inequity across the county, it is crucial to consider these interconnected challenges alongside the historical patterns of underinvestment and disinvestment in these communities.

By Bita Minaravesh, Ryan Fukumori, and Simone Robbennolt

This research was planned and conducted by Bita Minaravesh during her tenure as the National Equity Atlas Postdoctoral Fellow at the USC Equity Research Institute from 2022 to 2023. Ryan Fukumori and Simone Robbennolt from the Atlas contributed to the analysis with writing, data visualization, and additional research.

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Data and Methods
3. Findings
4. Recommendations
5. Acknowledgments
6. Related Resources

Introduction

Public parks and outdoor spaces are essential components of thriving, healthy, and equitable communities. Parks and green spaces have physical and mental health benefits, and they provide spaces for people to experience nature, exercise, and find emotional well-being. They also have many social benefits: they are community gathering spaces for children and adults, they can reduce overheating in urban environments, they stimulate local economic activity, and they employ community members. However, the majority of Californians do not enjoy green spaces in their neighborhoods. More than 60 percent of residents statewide live in neighborhoods that do not meet the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s recommendation of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, according to a 2019 report.

Because park equity is a matter of policymaking, planning, and public investment, disparities in green space often resemble patterns of inequitable housing development, economic growth, or employment. It is worth asking: to what extent do residents in communities with the fewest local parks also face the most financial hardship? Similarly, to what extent do the most affluent neighborhoods in a region also benefit from the highest concentrations of parks and green space?

To explore the overlap of economic inequity and park insecurity, we calculate the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (the Index) to measure how populations are clustered at the extreme ends of hardship or affluence. As outlined in the methodology, the Index provides a framework to examine household income levels and park coverage for each census tract in mainland Los Angeles County relative to the rest of the county.

Los Angeles County offers an illustrative case study of the overlap between economic inequity and disparate green space distribution. Los Angeles County’s park scarcity is the result of policy and planning decisions that have been implemented over the last century. As many historians have described, the region served as a social laboratory for land speculation, suburban development, and sprawl throughout the 20th century. These factors have resulted in a widespread absence of public green spaces in residential areas, creating relationships to nature as either privatized (e.g., families have personal yards and many communities have public spaces that are privately owned) or as separate from one’s residence (e.g., recreational areas mostly accessible by car, like Griffith Park).¹

However, Los Angeles County is also home to a deep legacy of movements to expand public parks, from the as-yet-unrealized 1930 Olmstead-Bartholomew Plan for greening Los Angeles County to current policy advocacy and community organizing efforts. The endurance of de facto segregation in the region also positions greenspace investment as a racial justice issue, especially for Black and Latinx communities. In turn, park equity advocates in Los Angeles County recognize that their efforts are part of a broader movement for economic equity and racial and environmental justice. This rich legacy of grassroots organizing serves as the foundation for our analysis of green space and economic disparity across the county.

The key findings include:

• Los Angeles County residents are about three times more likely to live in park-deficient neighborhoods than in park-rich neighborhoods.

• Nearly twice as many Los Angeles County residents live in lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods than in higher-income, park-rich neighborhoods.

• Lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods and higher-income, park-rich neighborhoods tend to be located in different parts of the county and are rarely found near each other.

• Four of Los Angeles County’s 10 planning areas are home to the majority of residents in lower-income, park-deficient communities.

• About nine times as many Latinx residents and six times as many Black residents live in lower-income, park-deficient areas than in higher-income, park-rich areas.

• Less than one-quarter of residents in higher-income, park-rich areas are renters, while three-quarters of residents in lower-income areas are renters regardless of park coverage.

Findings

Los Angeles County residents are about three times more likely to live in park-deficient neighborhoods than in park-rich neighborhoods.

Los Angeles County residents are relatively evenly distributed across lower-, mixed-, and higher-income groups. By contrast, Los Angeles County is so park-deficient that 41 percent of its residents live in census tracts with the lowest levels of park coverage, compared to just 14 of residents who live in park-rich areas. As the maps below show, the county’s lower-income census tracts are largely clustered east and south of Downtown Los Angeles, with a few pockets in the San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, near the Port of Los Angeles, and the Antelope Valley. However, park-deficient census tracts are scattered throughout all of the county’s basins, valleys, and flatlands — spanning working-class, urban communities to middle-class suburbs and desert exurbs.

Nearly twice as many Los Angeles County residents live in lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods than in higher-income, park-rich neighborhoods.

Since we classify each Los Angeles County census tract’s income security and park coverage as “lower/deficient,” “mixed/moderate,” or “higher/rich,” the region’s 10 million residents are grouped into nine neighborhood types. Ten percent of the population (more than one million residents) live in areas that are both lower-income and park-deficient. By comparison, higher-income, park-rich census tracts are home to 6 percent of Angelenos, or about 580,000 residents.

Disaggregating Los Angeles County’s population by both neighborhood “types” underscores the overall lack of parks in the region. More than half of all residents in lower-income tracts (53 percent) live in areas that are also park-deficient. Nearly half of all residents living in “mixed-income” census tracts (43 percent) also lived in park-deficient areas — almost four times as many residents in mixed-income yet park-rich tracts (11 percent).

Conversely, only about a third of all residents in higher-income neighborhoods (30 percent) also lived in park-rich areas. This is a high share, but a number of higher-income neighborhoods were not among the census tracts with the highest levels of park coverage. As a consequence of Los Angeles County’s overall park scarcity, about 367,000 residents (4 percent) live in areas that are higher-income, yet park-deficient — about three times as many residents (1 percent) who live in lower-income yet park-rich neighborhoods.

Lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods and higher-income, park-rich neighborhoods tend to be located in different parts of the county and are rarely found near each other.

Mapping these different types of census tracts across Los Angeles County reveals some broader trends in the geographic concentration of income and park insecurity. As the map below shows, lower-income, park-deficient census tracts and cities are clustered in the county’s valleys and flatlands, and these areas are mostly landlocked. Large pockets of these under-resourced areas are in Central Los Angeles (west of downtown), East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights, and the San Fernando Valley.

At the city level, small- and medium-sized cities in South Los Angeles (Inglewood, Compton, and Lynwood) and the adjacent Gateway Cities area (Bell, Huntington Park, and South Gate) are an outsized share of the places with the highest proportions of residents in lower-income, park-deficient areas. Aside from these more urban areas within or near Los Angeles city limits, the outlying suburban cities of Palmdale and Lancaster — located in the Antelope Valley, at the western edge of the Mojave Desert — also have above-average shares of residents in park-deficient, lower-income neighborhoods.

Higher-income, park-rich areas are mostly located in mountainous and coastal areas.

Higher-income, park-rich neighborhoods and cities in Los Angeles County are largely concentrated in four areas: the Malibu coastline and the Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa Clarita Valley and the surrounding mountainous areas, the foothills lining the northern and southern edges of the San Gabriel Valley, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. In the coastal cities of Malibu and Rancho Palos Verdes, 100 percent of residents live in higher-income, park-rich census tracts. Most of the cities with the highest shares of residents living in these well-resourced areas are less populous, with fewer than 50,000 residents.

Three of the county’s larger cities — Pasadena, Glendale, and Long Beach — have above-average shares of residents in higher-income, park-rich communities, but they are also among the small number of cities countywide with residents living in both “extreme” types of communities (along with Los Angeles, Burbank, and Palmdale). In other words, it is uncommon for lower-income, park-deficient areas and higher-income, park-rich areas to be near one another.

Four of Los Angeles County’s 10 planning areas are home to the majority of residents in lower-income, park-deficient communities.

To further compare Los Angeles County residents in well-resourced and under-resourced neighborhoods, we analyzed the population using the 10 planning areas used in Los Angeles County’s 2035 General Plan for the mainland part of the region.

The breakdown of residents by planning area illustrates the concentration of residents living in both “extreme” neighborhood types. Countywide, the number of residents in these under-resourced areas far exceeds the number of residents in higher-income, park-rich areas. However, residents in six of the 10 planning areas that are located in well-resourced census tracts (East San Gabriel Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, Santa Monica Mountains, South Bay, West San Gabriel Valley, and Westside) outnumber residents who live in lower-income, park-deficient census tracts. The Santa Clarita Valley and Santa Monica Mountains planning areas do not have a single lower-income, park-deficient census tract. These six planning areas are home to 68 percent of all residents countywide living in higher-income, park-rich areas. The other four planning areas (Antelope Valley, Gateway, Metro, and San Fernando Valley) contain 83 percent of all Angelenos living in lower-income, park-deficient census tracts. The two planning areas with the highest share of residents in lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods are the ones closest to and farthest from Downtown Los Angeles: Metro and Antelope Valley, respectively.

The clustering of Los Angeles County’s lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods in just four planning areas underscores how legacies of inequitable community development have shaped current-day disparities. Yet these disparities also show potential for building a more equitable future. Prioritizing new greenspaces in these concentrated areas of disinvestment can serve a great number of residents living in park-deficient areas.

About nine times as many Latinx residents and six times as many Black residents live in lower-income, park-deficient areas than in higher-income, park-rich areas.

Given that historically working-class communities of color, like South and East Los Angeles, comprise a large portion of the county’s lower-income, park-deficient neighborhoods, there is an outsized share of Latinx and Black Angelenos living in these areas. While 10 percent of all county residents live in lower-income, park-deficient census tracts, these tracts are home to 16 percent of the county’s Latinx residents and 13 percent of its Black population. Meanwhile, just 2 percent of Latinx and Black Angelenos live in higher-income, park-rich areas, compared to 4 percent of all residents. Latinx residents comprise just under 50 percent of the countywide population, but they make up about 75 percent of the residents in lower-income, park-deficient census tracts and just 15 percent of the population in higher-income, park-rich areas.

These trends are reversed for white residents: about 13 percent of white people live in higher-income, park-rich areas, compared to just 3 percent who live in lower-income, park-deficient areas. About 25 percent of the countywide population is white, compared to the majority of residents in higher-income, park-rich areas and just 7 percent of people in lower-income, park-deficient areas.

A higher share of Asian residents also live in higher-income, park-rich areas than in under-resourced areas, although the difference is much less pronounced than for white residents. The vast demographic and socioeconomic diversity of Los Angeles County's Asian American communities can make it difficult to identify concrete trends across the entire population. For instance, many Asian Americans live in the county’s suburbs, especially in the San Gabriel Valley and the southeast part of the county. These areas include the foothills that are home to many higher-income, park-rich areas, but they also include older suburbs in the flatlands without the same level of public investment in ample greenspaces.

Given that Los Angeles County residents of color are younger than white residents, children — who benefit greatly from safe, local outdoor spaces — are an outsized share of those who have less access to parks. Residents ages 0 to 17 make up 27 percent of residents in lower-income, park-deficient areas, compared to 22 percent of all residents and 20 percent of people in higher-income, park-rich areas. By contrast, older adults (ages 65 and up) are a much smaller proportion of residents in under-resourced neighborhoods (9 percent, versus 13 percent of the county population and 20 percent of well-resourced areas).

In addition, 25 percent of households in lower-income, park-deficient areas are linguistically isolated (a household where no member, ages 14 years or older, speaks only English or speaks English at least “very well”). This is nearly twice the rate of linguistic isolation countywide, and more than five times the rate in higher-income, park-rich areas. Given the concentration of Latinx residents in under-resourced areas, Spanish speakers are the large majority of linguistically isolated households in these neighborhoods. Parks and open spaces can serve as accessible, affordable gathering spaces for communities, so the absence of park space can serve to further isolate residents with limited English proficiency.

Less than one-quarter of residents in higher-income, park-rich areas are renters, while three-quarters of residents in lower-income areas are renters regardless of park coverage.

There are stark discrepancies across different types of neighborhoods between renters and homeowners. Countywide, just over half of residents (51 percent) rent their homes. However, residents of lower-income, park-deficient areas are more than three times as likely to be renters than people living in higher-income, park-rich tracts (74 percent and 23 percent, respectively).

Income also has a more significant impact on homeownership rates than does park coverage level. In the graph below, the figures change more significantly from left to right than from top to bottom. However, for residents in higher- and mixed-income areas, lower levels of park coverage did correspond to higher renter rates when controlling for income. Conversely, park coverage has no effect on homeownership rates in lower-income areas: three-quarters (75 percent) of residents in all lower-income areas are renters.

The reverse is true when looking at the percentage of residents in each type of neighborhood who live in single-family homes, regardless of ownership. Across the county, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all residents live in single-family homes, compared to five-sixths (83 percent) of residents in higher-income, park-rich areas and just under half (45 percent) of people in lower-income, park-deficient areas. For higher- and mixed-income areas, lower park coverage correlates with lower rates of single-family residences when controlling for income. These trends show a clear opposite relationship between housing density and park coverage in Los Angeles County: a small fraction of residents benefit from living in the areas with the greatest concentrations of green spaces and natural areas.

In this way, the challenge of inequitable green space development across Los Angeles County is inseparable from the region’s decades-long housing crisis. A regionwide plan to advance housing and health equity must address the lack of affordable housing and green spaces across the entire county while recognizing these inequities harm many of the same populations: people of color, immigrants, young people, and renters. Making homes affordable and public green spaces accessible for all go hand in hand in building communities where everyone can thrive.

Recommendations

Los Angeles County needs both additional park space and to improve existing park spaces in park-deficient and lower-income areas. Additionally, the region needs more affordable housing in park-rich and higher-income neighborhoods to ensure there is equitable access to existing park spaces. Advancing park equity in the Los Angeles region will require a mix of strategies, including:

Invest in improving and increasing access in lower-income, park-deficient areas.

Ensuring that communities have access to usable, safe park spaces requires providing ongoing investment and resources to communities with the greatest need. In addition to local measures, such as Ballot Measure A (a parcel taxation for dedicated funding for parks and open space in the county that passed in 2016), there is an opportunity to leverage the influx of federal dollars, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act, to increase park access in park-deficient areas. For example, the Federal Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) includes funding for projects that reconnect neighborhoods displaced by highway infrastructure through the removal or reconstruction of the highways into parks. These resources should be channeled toward closing the park gap.

Utilize multi-use spaces to increase the number of parks.

Los Angeles County has a shortage of open spaces needed to fully meet the needs of its 10 million residents, yet there are ample public facilities throughout the county. These public facilities include school sites or unused government-owned lots, and they provide the opportunity for joint-use agreements that can increase community access to park spaces. Los Angeles County, home to more than 2,200 public schools, has begun transforming unused space on public school lots to create community gardens or pocket parks. These efforts have been led by the LA Living Schoolyards Coalition (LA LSYC) — a group of nonprofit organizations, academics, and community members that advocate for equitable access to nature and healthy school environments. LA LSYC wants to transform current asphalt-covered schoolyards into green, park-like spaces and increase access to these spaces by opening campuses during non-school hours.

Clean up brownfield sites to create more open spaces and parks.

Brownfields — polluted former industrial sites — could be cleaned up and repurposed into park space. Every tract in Los Angeles County is home to a brownfield, with the tracts classified as “lower-income, park-deficient” having up to 205 brownfields within their boundaries. In many cases, these decades-old vacant lots that the county or private owners have held on to have the potential to become a part of a community’s infrastructure. While brownfields require extensive ecological testing to ensure the safety of residents who would come to the space for exploration and recreational activities, funding options currently are available through IIJA. The federal government has dedicated $1.5 billion to expand the EPA’s Brownfield Remediation and Revitalization program. The program’s expansion will support the planning, construction, and operation of a broad range of public infrastructure projects. And $1.2 billion of the investment is earmarked to prioritize providing grants for projects within “overburdened communities.”

Build more affordable homes in high-opportunity areas and increase access to park-rich areas.

In addition to the development and revitalization of park space in park-deficient and lower-income areas, the development of more multi-family affordable housing units in park-rich and higher-income communities is a necessity for advancing park equity. In 2023, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, a tool that can support communities that have experienced decades of housing divestment and displacement through the development of equitable housing opportunities. Advocates for the rule called for the development of affordable housing near resource-rich areas — those that include access to key community resources such as health-care services, quality schools, and safe parks.

It is also essential to increase affordable and accessible public transportation to park-rich areas. While living within walking distance of park space is ideal, increased infrastructure for people to commute to clean and safe outdoor spaces when such park spaces is not available in their community is also needed.

Convert existing parks to meet the current needs of communities.

Los Angeles has seen many demographic transitions over the last 50 years, as families have moved in and out of neighborhoods. A park may have been built when the community was heavily populated by young adults, looking to exercise in open space, but it is now home to families who seek playgrounds and safe spaces for their children to play and explore. Assessing these community shifts is critical in ensuring parks best serve the current needs of their communities. This strategy, however, does not alter the lack of parks in environmentally and economically insecure areas. To do that, new parks have to be established.

Acknowledgments

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to the diverse group of people, donors, and organizations whose support was instrumental in the development of this analysis. Their collective expertise, dedication, and collaboration were crucial in bringing this project to fruition.

We are immensely grateful to our colleagues at PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI), whose assistance was instrumental in shaping this work. Special thanks to Jennifer Tran of PolicyLink, whose guidance and insights were invaluable to our research. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Edward-Michael Muña and Justin Scoggins of ERI, who provided data support. Thanks to Gabriel Charles Tyler of PolicyLink for providing communications support. We also would like to thank current and former PolicyLink staff who generously shared their expertise on park equity and the built environment, including Axel Santana, Canyon Xan Wildwood, and Victor Rubin.

We are thankful for the contributions of our partners from Los Angeles-based environmental advocacy, community health, and social justice organizations. We are particularly grateful to Jasneet Bains Heyward of the Prevention Institute, Michele Prichard of the Liberty Hill Foundation (formerly), David Pineda of TreePeople, and Tori Kjerat of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust. Their insights were crucial for framing this research.

This work would not have been possible without the generous support of our donors. We thank the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for its pivotal role in funding the National Equity Atlas Postdoctoral Fellowship, which provided Dr. Bita Minaravesh with the time and resources needed to conduct this important research. We also thank the Bezos Earth Fund for investing in the Atlas, which has been instrumental in advancing our environmental justice research.

Back to Top