Building urban landscapes: Political approaches to city park distribution.

摘要

What determines the distribution of public parks within cities? Conflict over land use is one of the enduring features of city politics, and urban parks are a prime example of a collective public good established by local governments and supplied jointly to all residents on equal terms. Yet patterns of usage, spatial distribution, and maintenance vary both within and among communities, and do not fall into contemporary theories explaining both the function of the good and the behavior of its consumers.; Specifically, the dissertation focuses on two major tensions: whether the level of political autonomy of public agencies that manage parklands and strength of civic social capital impact the overall distribution of parkland in cities. Agencies that have developed professional norms and long-term goals for how they will manage parkland will be able to produce higher policy outputs than agencies that are micromanaged by other political actors such as state agencies and city councils. The strength of support by various groups including neighborhood groups, voters, and mayors impact the distribution of park resources as well. How strong the levels of civic engagement and interpersonal trust among the public and the agency providing park services will affect distribution. This dissertation examines the stages of development and distribution of parks in many cities across the United States using comparative, spatial, and regression analysis.; Data analyses show that park distribution cannot be typified as a distributive good as it often is by public choice theorists. Rather patterns of distribution strongly reflect civic commitments made by the public for the provision of parks, and the degree of political separation between park agencies and city and state governments. It is also important how distribution is measured. Quality indices show that previous studies explaining the bureaucratic or political effects upon the distribution of park resources make erroneous conclusions because they measure the quantity of the park resource, not the tangible level of benefits allocated to consumers.; Further research is necessary to flesh out how social capital manifests itself under different environmental constraints, and also what propels some politicians to offer long-term support for parks and others to disband funding for the parks agencies across the United States.