How the legal framework for urban parks design affects user satisfaction in a Latin American city

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

How the legal framework for urban parks design affects user satisfaction in a Latin American city

MARK

Lina Ojeda-Revaha,⁎, Ietza Bojorquezb, Juan Carlos Osunac a Departamento de Estudios Urbanos y Medio Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (Research Center), Carretera Escénica Tijuana - Ensenada, Km 18.5, San Antonio del Mar, 22560 Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico b Departamento de Estudios de Población, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Mexico c Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, Mexico

1. Introduction Cities are gaining attention as most of the world's population inhabits them. As a result, urban sustainability has become a major touchstone for urban policy (Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp, 2012). Among the factors that play an important role in the sustainable development of cities, urban green space stands out due to the multiple ecological, social, and economic benefits it provides. The provision and maintenance of green space depends mainly upon appropriate urban planning (Colding, 2011); nevertheless, urban planning literature has not paid much attention to green space planning (BaycanLevent & Nijkamp, 2012). Although in some countries green space planning and management is non-statutory (Carmona, de Magalhaes, & Hopkins, 2004; Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015), most use a wide range of powers granted by national, regional and local laws, and it is primarily a local government responsibility (Carmona et al., 2004). These laws are usually not addressed in one set of instruments; instead they are often scattered about in various land use and environment protection policies (Carmona et al., 2004; Peña-Salmón, Leyva-Camacho, Rojas-Caldelas, Alonso-Navarrete, & Iñiguez-Ayón, 2014). The most common strategy used to ensure the existence of green space is the quantitative standard approach, which has been criticized for failing to deliver quality accessible green space, that end up not being used (Byrne & Sipe, 2010; Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015). The main criticism is that standards do not account for demographic changes and leisure preferences (Byrne & Sipe, 2010). The use of green space is generally associated with residents who live nearby. Within cities, demographic structures, leisure preferences, and behaviors vary spatially and over time, so not all potential users will be the same (Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Therefore, in order to design green space, planners must understand the factors that influence how people perceive green space and use it. These factors can be potential users' characteristics or green space design (features and services). User characteristics include age, gender (Bai, Wilhelm Stanis, Kaczynski, & Besenyi, 2013), education, economic status (Cohen et al.,

⁎

Corresponding author at: P.O. Box “L”, Chula Vista, CA 91912-1257, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Ojeda-Revah), [email protected] (I. Bojorquez).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.05.016 Received 30 December 2016; Received in revised form 10 April 2017; Accepted 31 May 2017 0264-2751/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2012). Green space features and services influencing perception and use include and accessibility (McCormack, Rock, Toohey, & Hignell, 2010), quality and maintenance (Bai et al., 2013; McCormack et al., 2010), vegetation cover (García & Guerrero, 2006), athletic fields, playgrounds, paths, lighting, shade, picnic areas, signs, benches, drinking fountains, and toilets (Kaczynski, Potwarka, & Saelens, 2008; McCormack et al., 2010). Green space size also influences use, as larger green spaces usually allow more varied activities and thus facilitate the simultaneous presence of different groups with different requirements (Kaczynski et al., 2008). On the other hand, negative perceptions of green space can develop if it is neglected, poorly maintained, or unsafe, which can lead to a decline in use or to avoidance (Bai et al., 2013; McCormack et al., 2010). The green space research review carried out by Sreetheran and van den Bosch (2014) revealed a direct relationship between safety fears and a park's physical appearance (graffiti, vandalism, unmaintained vegetation, trash, etc.) and the presence of social incivilities or disorderly persons (gangs, homeless, drunkards, drug addicts, thieves, etc.). Latin-American studies related to park use and perception are increasing. These studies report as main problems parks' users perceive, are their small size, insecurity and poor maintenance (de la Barrera, Reyes-Paecke, & Banzhaf, 2016, García & Lara, 2016, Reyes Päcke & Figueroa Aldunce, 2010, Romo, 2008, Wright Wendel, Zarger, & Mihelcic, 2012). Nevertheless, we found no studies that relate perception of parks with the statutory design settings. Our case study in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, illustrates conditions that are present in many urban areas in Latin America. Tijuana is a dynamic city with marked social, territorial, and economic contrasts. Its location in the U.S.-Mexico border region (San Diego, California) has fostered a dynamic economy and fast population and urban growth, but at the same it has been difficult for Tijuana to meet the challenges of relatively uncontrolled growth (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2011). In recent decades, public policies have favored formal urban growth through large housing developments on the city's outskirts

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al.

the parks and snowball sampling of residents in the buffer areas. For the former, people were approached at the parks and invited to participate in interviews. The procedure used was to select persons of different ages and gender and to approach them at different times of the day to increase the representation of the local population. For the snowball sampling, we asked personal contacts whether they knew people who lived in the selected neighborhoods. People recruited through this method were asked to invite other possible participants. The sample size was limited to 32 interviewees, 16 for each park, and further divided into eight participants recruited at the park and eight through snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria for participants were: 1) being 18 years old or above; 2) living within the accessibility area; and 3) consenting to participate after an informed consent procedure. We conducted semi-structured interviews following the interview guide in Appendix 1. The protocol of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Following the steps suggested by grounded theory analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 2002), we conducted open coding of transcriptions of the first eight interviews and a first round of axial coding in which codes were grouped in thematic categories. The initial list of codes was then checked for redundancy and some codes were merged. Codes were checked against quotes for accuracy. A first set of preliminary results and new questions were developed and checked against 24 other interviewees. In parallel, the preliminary conclusions were discussed to further validate the results. The steps of open, axial, and selective coding and discussion were repeated until all authors agreed on the conclusions. For this article, we focused on issues regarding perceptions and personal use of the park.

(Enriquez, 2007). New large-scale homogeneous developments of tract housing were built under a housing-finance system on speculation by private companies and purchased with mortgages instead of through the traditionally incremental “self-help” housing building process (Monkkonen, 2011). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether existing green space (parks) that complies with current legislation meets the expectations of potential users in two housing developments in Tijuana. We selected two neighborhoods with similar population structure and local public parks, and explored the perceptions of local residents in terms of their satisfaction with the parks. We addressed the following research questions: What legal instruments establish responsibilities for urban parks and what are the limitations of these instruments? How do local residents perceive the quality of parks that comply with these legal instruments? 2. Study area Located at the western end of the international border between Mexico and the United States, Tijuana has been one of the fastestgrowing Mexican cities. High migration flow was reflected in an average annual population growth rate of 5.39% between 1990 and 2000; this fell to 2.5% between 2000 and 2010, when the population reached 1,519,454 inhabitants (INEGI, 2000, 2010). Tijuana has a rough terrain, semiarid climate, and a lack of water. Parks only cover 0.72% of the city's area, offering an average of 1.26 m2 per inhabitant; they are accessible (within 400 m) to just 37% of the population. Although the size of parks varies widely (153.3 to 627,491 m2), > 53% are smaller than 3000 m2. Due to the area's lack of water availability and poor maintenance, 43% of the parks have less than a quarter of their area covered with vegetation (Huizar & OjedaRevah, 2014).

4. Results 4.1. Urban parks' legal framework Mexican urban parks' legal framework comes under the umbrella of federal environmental protection (SEMARNAP, 1988) and urban development laws (Sedesol, 1993), which delegate responsibility to state and municipal governments to define the parameters. Nevertheless, the federal Social Development Ministry (Sedesol, 1999) in its urban infrastructure recreation subsystem recommends the use of the following park categories (Table 1). At the state level, environmental protection and urban development laws give municipalities the authority to create, regulate, and manage parks (GobBC, 1994, 2001). Parks' parameters are only defined in the Housing Development Law, establishing that new housing developments should allocate 3% of their area as parkland and maintain it until it is received by the state or municipality (GobBC, 1971). At the municipal level, the Environmental Protection Law establishes the Department of Ecology as responsible for the organization, management, and conservation of parks (Ayuntamiento de Tijuana, 2001). Nevertheless, there is another regulation that allows the municipality to use park areas for housing or infrastructure (Ayuntamiento de Tijuana, 2002). Taking a broader view, the municipal urban development plan (Ayuntamiento de Tijuana, 2010), considers the creation of other types of green space in high-risk areas unsuitable for urbanization.

3. Methods 3.1. Review of legislation Federal, state, and municipal urban development and environmental laws, regulations, and land use plans that apply to the municipality of Tijuana were reviewed in order to analyze the elements that determine the statutory provisions and design for parks. 3.2. Case study To assess whether parks that comply with current regulations are perceived as attractive by people living in the neighborhood, we conducted a case study of two parks from two housing developments in different parts of the city's outskirts. The parks have a similar array of service types, but differ in size (Huizar & Ojeda-Revah, 2014). The selected parks are Santa Fe I (SF), in the west of the city, and Villa Fontana I (VF), in the city's east (Fig. 1). We assessed the parks' characteristics as well as the population structure and socioeconomic characteristics in their accessibility areas. Parks' accessibility areas used in Latin-American studies range between 300 (Reyes Päcke & Figueroa Aldunce, 2010), 400 m (< 2 ha parks) (Wright Wendel et al., 2012) and 750 m (García & Lara, 2016). As there is no agreement and considering the Tijuana's rough topography, we used a smaller value than the average. Therefore, accessibility areas were established using Euclidean distances to delineate a 400 m buffer around each park. The population located within a service area was assumed to have access to that particular park (Sister et al., 2007). We conducted interviews with residents to understand their perceptions of the parks' quality and attractiveness. For the interviews, we recruited participants through purposive sampling (Hudelson, 1994). To increase variability in terms of participants' degree of utilization of the park, we followed two strategies to recruit participants: sampling at

4.2. Population structure in the parks' accessibility areas Within the selected parks' accessibility areas, population structures (INEGI, 2010) were similar. The urban marginalization index of both areas is considered low, as it is for 44% of Tijuana's population. Population density is slightly higher in SF than in VF, with 225 and 196 inhabitants/ha respectively (INEGI, 2010) (Table 2). 4.3. Parks in housing developments The housing development in the community of Santa Fe was built in 13

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al. Fig. 1. Locations of the studied parks.

damaged. Service maintenance in SF Park is better than that of VF (vegetation, playground, and irrigation system) because the first is managed by a group of local residents while latter is managed by the municipality.

the early 2000s. It is a complex of 15,000 homes built between steep and fragmented hills that are poorly connected to other parts of the city (Enriquez, 2007). Within the accessibility area of SF Park there are 4640 inhabitants, resulting in 0.86 m2 of park per inhabitant, but the accessibility area for 83.6% of the population also overlaps with that of other parks in the same housing complex (Fig. 2a). The housing complex in Villa Fontana was built in the 1990s. It has 20,000 homes, but the condition of a significant number of houses and the urban context is deplorable. Most neighborhood committees that were organized at the time when the complex first opened have disappeared, and neighbor disputes and insecurity are common problems in the area (Enriquez, 2007). Within the accessibility area of the urban park in VF there are 1.46 m2 of park per inhabitant, but 63.8% of the population has access to other parks (Fig. 2b). Although marginalization levels were similar within both parks' accessibility areas, marked differences were observed in the field. Houses around VF Park are smaller, mostly one story, and of lower quality than those around SF (Fig. 3a and b).

4.5. Interviews Participants interviewed in the vicinity of both parks studied were roughly similar (Table 4). The majority of them were married and employed adults between 30 and 50 years old, but there were also two older adults (> age 65). In this section we present the participants' perceptions of their local parks, and how these compared with their notion of an “ideal park.” In general, participants interviewed for both sites considered that their local parks were better than others in nearby areas. When asked to describe the local park, most participants living in SF said something along the lines of “nice, but a little bit neglected” (08, male, age 37). Participants from VF gave a similar general description, but also mentioned that the park was not quite safe:

4.4. Park attributes

Q: So, comparing this park with others in Tijuana, how do you think this one compares? A: Mmm … better, this one is better, better kept […] 'cause the others, they seem to me more abandoned—the ones in other

Both parks have sanitary facilities, lighting, and benches that are damaged (Table 3, Figs. 4 and 5). The accessibility area of SF Park is steeper than that of VF, but the streets and sidewalks in VF are Table 1 Park categories. (Sedesol, 1999) Type

Definition

Population served

Area

Playground

Children's recreation area, with playground, plazas, walkways, areas for resting and green space Open area with trees that serves the local population neighborhood, intended for walking, resting, and gatherings; with walkways, areas to relax, games, and children's recreation places, kiosk, soda fountain, toilets, and green space Open area with trees, designed for enjoyment, relaxing, and recreation; with green and relaxation areas, playgrounds and other children's recreation areas, plazas and walkways, toilets, warehouses, maintenance, parking, and eventually cultural facilities Green outdoor area with separate areas for walking, resting, recreation and gatherings; with trees, management, restaurant, kiosk, cafe, general areas, playground and casual sports, utilities, walkways, squares, and parking

Population under 12 years, > 2500 inhabitants General population, > 5000 inhabitants

1250, 3500 & 5, 500 m2

General population, > 10,000 inhabitants

11,000, 30,800 & 44,000 m2

General population, > 50,000 inhabitants

9.1, 18.2 & 72.8 ha

Local garden

Neighborhood park

Urban park

14

2500, 7000 & 10,000 m2

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al.

Table 2 Population structure and urban marginalization level within accessibility area of parks. Age

Population structure (INEGI, 2010)

0–11 12–17 18–24 24–59 > 60 Total

Urban marginalization index (CONAPO, 2010)a

Santa Fe

Villa Fontana

Male

Female

Total

%

Male

Female

Total

%

2955 1722 1298 5436 309 11,720 − 0.99263

2960 1685 1440 5868 463 12,416

5915 6585 2738 11,304 772 27,314

21.66 24.11 10.02 41.39 2.83 100.00

3040 3001 923 5396 184 12,544 −0.99795

2926 2830 958 5795 279 12,788

5966 5842 1881 11,170 463 25,322

23.56 23.07 7.43 44.11 1.83 100.00

a Marginalization levels: very low (−1.63283 to −0.95978), low (−0.95978 to −0.62325), medium (− 0.62325 to 0.04980), high (0.04980 to 1.05937), very high (1.05937 to 5.09767) (CONAPO, 2010).

Fig. 2. Accessibility area of (a) Santa Fe Park and (b) Villa Fontana Park (central circles) and of other nearby parks (other circles), showing census units (AGEB). Source: compiled by Carlos Gonzalez using INEGI (2010) maps.

neighborhoods close by. This one is fine, lots of people come to run, to walk, in the evenings, lots of people come with children. But it still needs things, care, it is neglected, the children's playground and everything. And then there's also a lot of, a lot of vagrants, people who come to use drugs and things like that, there's no vigilance (30, female, age 60).

mentioned the bigger green areas of the city, such as Morelos (~ 430,000 m2) or de la Amistad (~ 242,000 m2) parks. The two main reasons given for liking those parks are an indication of what survey participants would like to see in their parks. First, participants described the ideal parks as big, ample, and having a variety of attractions. In those parks, one could take children to play, walk around, sit, watch animals (one of the parks has a small zoo), have a party, listen to a concert, etc. The size of the parks meant

However, when asked to describe the “ideal park,” all participants

Fig. 3. General view of park areas and surroundings of (a) Santa Fe and (b) Villa Fontana.

15

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al.

Table 3 Attributes of the two selected parks. Source: Field work observation Area

Santa Fe Park 3995 m2

Villa Fontana Park 14793 m2

Access

Within walking distance of a main road Nearby crosswalks facilitate access Surrounding streets are in good condition, some are very steep Some streetlights do not work

Within walking distance of a main road Nearby crosswalks facilitate access Surrounding streets and sidewalks are damaged and have open sewers Some streetlights do not work Surrounding wire fence, partly destroyed for walking shortcuts Public events stage, in poor condition, with graffiti Eight kiosks Paved paths Structures for hanging piñatas 26 benches of wood and cement, some damaged Deteriorated structure that served as a store Damaged sanitary facilities closed because of vandalism and lack of maintenance Steel and plastic climbing frame and a slide, both broken; a few pieces of drain pipe to play on; structures for 28 swings, of which only nine work Does not cover the entire area, so hoses are also used. No energy meter 16 lamps, but only 10 work

Services

Facilities Gazebo Two kiosks Paved paths Structures for hanging piñatas Eight steel benches, some damaged

Playground Irrigation Lighting

Management

Six sanitary facilities, but just one works, only accessed with the manager's consent Steel climbing structure, four slides, and two swings in excellent condition Covers a good amount of the park Energy consumption meter Nine double lamps (only six are still standing, and just a few work) Smaller lanterns (some damaged). The electricity supply is also used by a fast-food stand, which opens at night. Group of residents who contribute fees. A local vendor helps with the maintenance of the park in exchange for being given the opportunity to sell his products in the park, from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Municipality Apparently it is only irrigated and cleaned weekdays between 6 a.m. and 1 p.m.

preferred to do this at other places. One participant, for example, usually crossed the park as part of her running routine, but didn't stay there, as it was too small. Another interviewee made use of park equipment such as benches and swings as part of his strengthening routine, but this was only because he was currently unemployed and unable to afford a gym. The second reason why participants considered their parks as less than ideal was a lack of maintenance. This was a generalized perception among interviewees, who described dry vegetation, painting that needed to be done, and broken lamps and playground equipment. In this regard, it was interesting that participants mentioned that the big parks (La Amistad and Morelos) were not “even comparable,” because the municipality was in charge of them, while some of the local parks were essentially left for the neighbors to care for. Participants in SF stressed that it was thanks to the neighbors' involvement in park management that their local parks was in relatively good condition, while those in VF mentioned the opposite: that having no organized neighbors, no one cared for the park.

that different activities were not in competition with each other, which contrasted with the situation in the local park: Q: How would you describe this park? A: OK, I would say, it's been a little bit neglected because sometimes people come … children, you know how they are … and … people who step on green areas where they shouldn't step, or they, how can I put it? They run around, play football [soccer] which, this is not a football park, so that damages the grass that should be green […] they use it as a playfield and no, this is a park for sitting under a tree, I don't know, walk around, or sit and have an ice cream with your family, I don't know (01, male, age 42). So the local park was described as limited in the range of activities it allowed. Most participants agreed that the local park was a place for taking young children to the playground, and maybe for walking or sitting, but not especially suited for adult exercise. Although, as in the quote above, interviewees mentioned that people came to run or walk, participants who practiced a more intense routine of physical activity

Fig. 4. Santa Fe Park attributes (a) Playground and (b) kiosk, bench, and path.

16

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al.

Fig. 5. Villa Fontana Park attributes (a) picnic table and fence and (b) playground.

studied are perceived as lacking areas for different activities, which is related to size and with security and maintenance problems. The same problems have been found in other Latin-American cities (de la Barrera et al., 2016; García & Lara, 2016; Reyes Päcke & Figueroa Aldunce, 2010; Romo, 2008; Wright Wendel et al., 2012) and some Eastern European cities (Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp, 2009). Few developed countries studies refer to maintenance problems (BaycanLevent & Nijkamp, 2009), unless it is for overcrowding reasons (Kaczynski et al., 2008). Particularly in Tijuana, the legal setting, has favored the proliferation mostly of small parks as reported for Santiago, Chile (Reyes Päcke & Figueroa Aldunce, 2010), and has left aside the development of big parks (Huizar & Ojeda-Revah, 2014). Small parks are designed mainly for children, sports and cultural activities are just intended for larger park, which are not mandatory. These activities are planned and managed by different municipal government agencies, which do not coordinate with parks authorities. Coordination problems have also been reported elsewhere (Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp, 2012; Carmona et al., 2004), which for may be due to limitations on statutory powers, skills and communication (Carmona et al., 2004). Perceived insecurity is defined by design factors (Paydar, KamaniFard, & Etminani-Ghasrodashti, 2017). The perception that both parks studied are unsafe is linked to poor physical appearance and social incivilities (Sreetheran & van den Bosch, 2014). Poor physical appearance and lighting is due to the lack of maintenance, and social incivilities relates to the presence of disorderly persons. Insecurity perception has been highlighted for other LatinaAmerican cities, especially for women (Paydar et al., 2017; Wright Wendel et al., 2012). Our findings should be interpreted with caution, as they come from a purposive sampling sample of informants in just two neighborhoods in Tijuana. However, the fact that other studies of parks in the city (Huizar & Ojeda-Revah, 2014), as well as in other Mexican cities (García & Lara, 2016; Romo, 2008), Chile (Reyes Päcke & Figueroa Aldunce, 2010) and Colombia (Parra et al., 2010), show that they are probably transferable to other similar contexts. Part of the urban parks problems mentioned has their roots in the fragmented and sometimes conflicting legal framework. As in many countries, in Mexico, the legal setting is not packaged in one set of instruments (Carmona et al., 2004). Nevertheless Federal requirements for park development are not mandatory, rather they are only recommendations based on population that defines park size and design, with only a passive recreational vision. In the case of Tijuana, the state law is based on a different quantitative standard, as it stipulates a percentage of housing land developed to be kept as parks, and it does not specify design requirements. The municipality has the responsibility

Table 4 Socio-demographic characteristics of interview participants.

Age Gender Marital status

Education

Occupation

Range Average Men Women Married Single Widowed 0–9 years 10–12 years 13 + years Housewife Employee/self employed Unemployed Retired

Santa Fe Park (n = 16)

Villa Fontana Park (n = 16)

21–74 39 8 8 10 5 1 4 5 7 3 9 1 3

24–61 42 4 12 9 7 0 5 5 6 3 11 2 0

Q: How would you describe this park? A: I would describe it as almost a first-world park. Because you know here in Tijuana, I have been here ten years, since the area was built, and you know here in Tijuana there is no culture on the government's part, they give you the parks but they don't maintain them. But here, you can see, after ten years the playground equipment works, the … it has grass, the watering installation, the electric installation. It's because we pay for the maintenance, we pay for it (09, male, age 35). Participants in VF also considered security an important problem, which limited or stopped them from visiting the park. Some of them preferred to go there after sundown (because of the heat) but weren't able to do so because the lack of illumination made them feel vulnerable to crime. In summary, interviewees described the local parks as acceptable, but limited in many ways, and said big parks were more likable. In the following section we will discuss how this showed that, for the neighbors, the local parks, even when they complied with local legislation, did not compare favorably with what the respondents would like to see in a park.

5. Discussion Perception can influence parks use patterns (Bai et al., 2013; McCormack et al., 2010; Kaczynski et al., 2008). As de la Barrera et al. (2016, 213) point out “size and shape of green space matters”. Parks 17

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al.

the expectations of potential user's needs, mainly because of small size, few amenities, and maintenance and insecurity problems. All of these are related to the absence of a comprehensive legal framework; and the lack of law enforcement. As Morales-García de Alba (2009) states, park problems in Mexico have a planning and legislative origin: design is limited, often having only a decorative value. In many cases no one takes responsibility for them or their maintenance. Although the quantitative standard approach for urban parks planning has been criticized (Byrne & Sipe, 2010; Haaland & van den Bosch, 2015), for some authors, establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework could help define powers and ensure a statutory minimum area and quality in terms of design and maintenance (Arku, Yeboah, & Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2016; Carmona et al., 2004; Reyes Päcke & Figueroa Aldunce, 2010). Baycan-Levent & Nijkamp (2009: 10) point out that although there is a need for “a tailor-made approach and the design of principles that satisfy the needs at the local level,” some general principles can be used to plan them. In the case of Tijuana, a starting point of these principles should be minimum areas per inhabitant for parks, especially for newly developed areas; accessibility or equitable distribution; quality; and taking into account the population structure, participation in the design process, and opinions of potential users. Designs should be developed by trained managers and planners with a better understanding of the multifunctional nature of parks and enhance coordination between government agencies.

to maintain parks, but not to create them. In the areas studied there are other small parks nearby, so a more suitable alternative could be to create larger parks, which could accommodate a broader range of services and activities, even if they were farther away from users. Thus, a greater distance to parks may be compensated for by quality, diversity, and size (Wright Wendel et al., 2012). While it might only be possible to have small parks in already built-up dense urban areas, there should be a statutory minimum size for parks in new housing development areas. Urban parks' safety could be enhanced by the presence of more users (Sreetheran & van den Bosch, 2014), which can be promoted by adequate design (Paydar et al., 2017). Paydar et al. (2017) recommends reducing signs of disorder (litter, wandering strangers, improving lighting, stationary surveillance by residents in their homes), and the use of suitable vegetation. In the parks studied, better maintenance was related to users' participation, although participation was limited to residents' fees to pay someone else to do it. For another city of Mexico, Romo (2008) found that most people think that authorities are the responsible for park maintenance, and very few consider it their own responsibility. Nevertheless, it has also been reported elsewhere that participation of residents' in the planning process may provide a sense of guardianship over parks and thus contribute to greater use (McCormack et al., 2010). 6. Conclusion In Tijuana parks that comply with current legislation do not meet Appendix 1. Interview guide

Dimensions and objectives

Questions

Introduction: establishing rapport, to learn the general context of the person This interview refers to the experience of people of city parks What do you do for a living, with whom do you live, and what do you enjoy doing in your spare time? Park perceptions: explore whether the respondent knows the parks, and his Do you know the parks nearby? or her overall impression of them (including comparison with other How would you describe the park? parks). Explore park quality aspects that are relevant to the individual. Compared to other parks you know, what do you think of this park? Why? Park use: whether respondent uses parks, use characteristics, and park use/ Do you go to the park? To another park? non-use reasons. Why do you go/not go to that park? How often do you use the park? What do you do when you go to the park? Parks and physical activity: whether the respondent used parks for PA, and [If not mentioned above] Do you exercise in the park? How long the role of use/non-use in daily PA does it take you to walk to the park? Do you exercise elsewhere (e.g. home, gym, etc.)? How often do you do it? In your daily life, do you walk? Do you do any other type of physical activity as part of your work or of your daily activities? Closure Do you have any other comments? Thank and terminate

Bai, H., Wilhelm Stanis, S. A., Kaczynski, A. T., & Besenyi, G. M. (2013). Perceptions of neighborhood park quality: Associations with physical activity and body mass index. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(Suppl. 1), S39–S48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12160-012-9448-4. de la Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., & Banzhaf, E. (2016). Indicators for green spaces in contrasting urban settings. Ecological Indicators, 62, 212–219. Baycan-Levent, T., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 135(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:1(1). Baycan-Levent, T., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Critical success factors in planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 4(3), 209–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2012.047278. Byrne, J., & Sipe, N. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation—A review of literature and best practice. Urban research program issues paperBrisbane: Griffith University 11 March 2010. (ISBN 978-1-921291-96-8). Carmona, M., de Magalhaes, C., & Hopkins, J. (2004). Is the grass greener…? Learning from

References Arku, G., Yeboah, I. E. A., & Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. (2016). Public parks as an element of urban planning: A missing piece in Accra's growth and development. Local Environment, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1140132. Ayuntamiento de Tijuana (2001). Reglamento de Protección al Ambiente para el Municipio de Tijuana, Baja California. Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California (POEBC). CVIII. Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California (POEBC) (pp. 47–126). no. 20, section I, May 11, 2011. Ayuntamiento de Tijuana (2002). Reglamento de bienes y servicios del Municipio de Tijuana, Baja California. POEBC. CIX. POEBC (pp. 44–58). no. 10, section I, March 8, 2002. Ayuntamiento de Tijuana (2010). Programa de desarrollo urbano del centro de población de Tijuana, Baja California 2010–2030. POEBC. CXVII no. 38, section II, September 3, 2010.

18

Cities 69 (2017) 12–19

L. Ojeda-Revah et al.

003. Monkkonen, P. (2011). Do Mexican cities sprawl? Housing-finance reform and changing patterns of urban growth. Urban Geography, 32(3), 406–423. http://dx.doi.org/10. 2747/0272-3638.32.3.406. Morales-García de Alba, E. (2009). Planeación urbana municipal, áreas verdes y propiedad privada en Puebla, México: Caso Exrancho Rementería. Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2(4), 252–277. Parra, D. C., McKenzie, T. L., Ribeiro, I. C., Hino, A. A. F., Dreisinger, M., Coniglio, K., Munk, M., Brownson, R. C., Pratt, M., Hoehner, C. M., & Simoes, E. J. (2010). Assessing physical activity in public parks in Brazil using systematic observation. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1420–1426. http://ajph.aphapublications. org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2009.181230. Paydar, M., Kamani-Fard, A., & Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R. (2017). Perceived security of women in relation to their path choice toward sustainable neighborhood in Santiago, Chile. Cities, 60, 289–300. Peña-Salmón, C., Leyva-Camacho, O., Rojas-Caldelas, R., Alonso-Navarrete, A., & IñiguezAyón, P. (2014). The identification and classification of green areas for urban planning using multispectral images at Baja California, Mexico. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 191(11), 611–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/ SC140511. Reyes Päcke, S., & Figueroa Aldunce, I. M. (2010). Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las áreas verdes en Santiago de Chile. EURE (Santiago), 36(109), 89–110. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71612010000300004. Romo, L. (2008). Áreas verdes y justicia social en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. Crisol. Fusión de ideas, 3(1), 9–26. Sánchez-Rodríguez, R. (2011). Urban and social vulnerability to climate variability in Tijuana, Mexico. In R. Kasperson, & M. Berberian (Vol. Eds.), The earthscan science in society series. . 2011. Integrating science and policy: Vulnerability and resilience in global environmental change (pp. 187–214). Routledge. Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (Sedesol) (1993). Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). CDLXXVIII (no. 15, July 21, 1993. Last revision, January 2, 2014). Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP) (1988). Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente. DOF. CDXII (no.19, January 28, 1988. Last revision, January 9, 2015). Sedesol (1999). Sistema normativo de equipamiento urbano. Tomo V, Recreación y DeporteMexico City: Sedesol. Retrieved from http://www.redicsa.org/ ARQUITECTURA/SEDESOL%205.pdf (Accessed 16.11.7) . Sister, C., Wolch, J., Wilson, J., Linder, A., Seymour, M., Byrne, J., & Swift, J. (2007). The green visions plan for 21st century Southern California. 15. Park congestion and strategies to increase park equity. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities Retrieved from http://www. ced.berkeley.edu/downloads/pubs/faculty/wolch_2007_park-congestion-strategiespark-equity.pdf (Accessed 16.11.7). Sreetheran, M., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2014). A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces–A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.11.006. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Medellín, Colombia: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia. Wright Wendel, H. E., Zarger, R. K., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2012). Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 272–282. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003.

international innovations in urban green space management. London: CABE Space. Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Derose, K. P., Williamson, S., Marsh, T., Rudick, J., & McKenzie, T. L. (2012). Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Social Science & Medicine, 75(12), 2317–2325. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.036. Colding, J. (2011). The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning. In J. Niemelä (Vol. Ed.), Urban ecology: Patterns, processes and applications. 2011. Urban ecology: Patterns, processes and applications (pp. 228–237). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO) (2010). Índices de marginación urbana. CONAPO. Retrieved from http://www.conapo.gob.mx/en/CONAPO/Indice_de_ marginacion_urbana_2010 (Accessed 16.11.7) . Enriquez, J.Á. (2007). Ciudad de muros. Socialización y tipología de las urbanizaciones cerradas en Tijuana. Frontera Norte. 19(38). Socialización y tipología de las urbanizaciones cerradas en Tijuana. Frontera Norte (pp. 127–156). Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (ISSN: 0187-7372). García, H. G., & Lara, F. L. (2016). Equidad en la provisión de espacios públicos abiertos: Accesibilidad, percepción y uso entre mujeres de Hermosillo, Sonora. Sociedad y Ambiente, 10, 28–56. García, S., & Guerrero, M. (2006). Indicadores de sustentabilidad ambiental en la gestión de espacios verdes: Parque urbano Monte Calvario, Tandil, Argentina. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 35, 45–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S071834022006000100004. GobBC (1994). Ley de desarrollo urbano del Estado de Baja California. CIPOEBC (no. 26, Section I, June 24, 1994. Last revision, August 2, 2013). GobBC (2001). Ley de protección al ambiente para el Estado de Baja California, México. POEBC. CVIII (section I. no. 53. November 30, 2001). Gobierno del Estado de Baja California (GobBC) (1971). Reglamento de fraccionamientos del Estado de Baja California. Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California (POEBC). LXXVIII (no. 10, section I, April 10, 1971). Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban greenspace planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 760–771. Hudelson, P. M. (1994). Qualitative Research for Health Programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse Retreived from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/62315/1/WHO_MNH_PSF_94.3.pdf (Accessed 16.11.7). Huizar, H., & Ojeda-Revah, L. (2014). Los Parques de Tijuana: Una perspectiva de justicia ambiental. In L. Ojeda-Revah, & I. Espejel (Vol. Eds.), Cuando las áreas verdes se transforman en paisaje: La visión de Baja California. 2014. Cuando las áreas verdes se transforman en paisaje: La visión de Baja California (pp. 87–120). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte: México. INEGI (2010). Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2010. INEGI. Retrieved from http:// www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/biblioteca/ficha.aspx?upc=702825002398 (Accessed 16.11.7) . Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2000). Perfil Sociodemográfico Baja California, XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000. INEGI. Retrieved from http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/biblioteca/ficha.aspx?upc=702825000267 (Accessed 16.11.7) . Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1451. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.129064. McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16(4), 712–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.

19