Conference: Evaluation of Tijuana parks: an environmental justice approach

Green infrastructure, two visions:

“Evaluation of Tijuana parks: an environmental justice approach”

MAIA. Heber Huizar Contreras

Advisor: Dra. Lina Ojeda-Revah

O2

Aquifer recharge and water quality improvement

Reduces runoffReduce landslides and

mudflows

Reduces extreme temperaturesIncreases humidity

Deflects wind

Connects people with natureEnvironmental educationImproves quality of lifeCultural, ethic and spiritual valuesOpportunities for recreation,reinforces a sense of community, social cohesion, and social capital

Reduces solar radiation

Reduces noise pollution

Produces shade

Conserves biodiversity

Source: Modified from Córdova y Martínez-Soto (2014)

Captures carbon

Environmental and

social amenities

Rules and

regulations

ManagementQuality of life

Modulates climate

$

Physical and mental health Savings in medical care

Generates direct incomeIncreases property value

Energy saving and its costs

Improves air qualityReduces air pollution and its costs

Reduces GHGemittions

20

Why are parks important to cities?

Green space environmental services (parks)

Urban sprawl

Fragmentation

21

Tijuana context

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1938 1950 1959 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Mill

ion

s o

f p

eop

le

Sources: 1938-70: Hierneaux (1986); 1980: Ranfla et al (1986); 1990-2010: INEGI (1990, 2000,2010)

Population growth of Tijuana

Accelerated urban sprawl (Bringas & Sánchez, 2006).

Vegetation coverage loss

43 % of Tijuana’s urban settlements has irregular origin (Alegría & Ordoñez, 2005).

High migration flow (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2011).

Photography: Zona Río view. Personal collection

Urban population:1,519,454 (INEGI, 2010)

Environmental justice approach

Parks

Urban planning

Environmental services

Sust

ain

able

d

evel

op

men

t

Management

Based on socioeconomic characteristics

Rules and regulations

Citizens and institutions

Environmental justice

Distributive justice/Participatory

justice

Accessibility

Equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits among all people in

society, considering in that distribution the recognition of the community situation and the capabilities of its

people and their participation in making decisions that affect them (Hervé,

2010:17-18).

22

Theoretical framework

The need to ensure a better life quality for all, now and in the future, equitably and fairly, while living inside the limits of the ecosystem that supports us (Agyeman & Evans, 2003:5).

23

Accessibility as a measure of EJ

Source: Indicators related to public space and mobility in Seville, Spain.http://www.ecourbano.es/imag/4%20espacio%20publico%20y%20movilidad.pdf

“the potential of interaction between the target population that live in each Basic Geostatistical Area (AGEB)… and the units of city services” (Garrocho & Campos, 2006:6).

24

Research question

HypothesisTijuana parks are not equally accessible to the entirepopulation and scarcity, quality, distribution andaccessibility are related to the concentration anddistribution of the population without access to education.

Does the current distribution, surface area, quality and accessibility of parks in Tijuana, B. C. meet the parameter of equity as a fundamental element of environmental justice?

Quantity

Slope

Public or private access

Parks

Management Administration

Population

Inhabitants

Access to education

Surface area

Extent of supply

Park buffer zone

Extent of supply

according to accessibility

Park quality

Map

s (a

eria

l ph

oto

grap

hy

and

fie

ldw

ork

)

Rules, regulations and concept

INEG

I

Variables IndicatorsInformation sources

Do

cum

ents

Vegetation coverage and equipment

Pro

bin

g

Cit

y, a

dm

inis

trat

ive

bo

rou

ghs

and

Bas

ic G

eost

atis

tica

l Are

a

Extent of supply according to

socioeconomic characteristics

Aerial photography 2008

Contours 1998

Population age 6 to 14no education

(proxy to low income)

Very low, low, fair, good

m2 park/person

400m – slope or access

m2 of park/person in buffer zone

m2 park/person Vs. Population 6 to 14 no

education

25

Methodology

Physical | Management | Population Performance of parks | Environmental justice

240 parks

0.72% urban coverage (1,929,746.7 m2)

54 % < 3 mil m2

82 % < Professional soccer field

26

Findings: How many parks are there in Tijuana?

Findings: Extent of supply

Ideal parameter: 9 to 12 m2 per person Tijuana: 1.26 m2/person. 27

Camellones y glorietas (2012)

Source: Huizar & Ojeda-Revah (2014).

• Increases to 1.43 % of the urban surface area (3,859,128.14 m²)

• 2.56 m² per person

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1989 1994 2001 2008 2010

*Note: there is no information for urban road landscaping of 1989

urban road landscaping (ha)* parks (ha)

% parks/ urban area parks m²/ inhabitant

Over the time investment in green space has been greater in urban road landscaping than in parks.

Findings: Urban road landscaping

Source: Huizar & Ojeda-Revah (2014).

28

% o

f u

rban

su

rfac

e ar

ea

Hec

tare

of

gree

n s

pac

e

53%

18%

10%

3%

10%

5% 1%Municipio (atendidos)

Colonos

Colonos de fraccionamiento

cerrado

OSC

Constructora (atendidos)

Parques abandonados

(municipio o constructora)

Otro

Public or private access: 87% are public

Municipality (attended)

Settlers

Settlers in gated communities

NGO

Builder company (attended)

Abandoned parks (municipality or builder company)

Other

29

Findings: Who manages Tijuana’s parks?

28 %Residents

Findings: Parks quality

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% 0 1 2 3 > 3

% vegetation cover # types of equipment

20%

49%

31%

Irrigation needs of the species used for forestation in 1996

abundante regular resistente a la sequía

3%

46%

37%

14%

Maintenance needs of the species used for forestation in 1996

constante regular ocasional bajo

Source: Ojeda & Álvarez (2000).

Number of parks by % of vegetation cover and variety of equipment

30

Source: Huizar & Ojeda (2014).

Source: Ojeda & Álvarez (2000).

Average: Fair. Vegetation: Low

Basic Geostatistical Area

Good

Fair

Low

Very low

31

Findings: Parks quality

Parque El Refugio, Delegación La Presa (Low).

Parks: Quality

Parque Teniente Guerrero, Delegación Centro (Good) Parque El Lago, Delegación Cerro Colorado (Fair)

32

Findings: Parks quality

Photographs: personal collection (2012)

4 % POP 6-14 w/no EDU

33

Findings: Parks accessibility

564,033 residents

84 % buffer zone in flat terrain

35 % Population

3 % Private

3.7 m2/person

GroupIntervals of POP 6 to

14 w/no EDU (%)

Intervals of Sq. meter

of parks per personPOP % POP Notes

Sin

par

qu

es

1a 0 0 31,530 2.08People w/no access to parks |

Without POP 6 to 14 w/no education

1b 0.71 – 9.96 0 932,484 61.37People w/no access to parks |

Low % POP 6 to 14 w/no education

1c 10.06 – 36.67 0 18,140 1.19People w/no access to parks |

Highest % POP 6 to 14 w/no education

Co

n p

arq

ues

2a 0 0.31 – 7.57 26,150 1.72No POP 6 to 14 w/no education

Below de 10m2/person

2b 0 11.23 – 250.33 2,747 0.18No POP 6 to 14 w/no education

Above 10 m2/person

3a 0.60 – 11.41 0.02 – 4.71 482,920 31.78POP 6 to 14 w/no education

Below 5m2/person

3b 0.85 – 4.02 5.06 – 9.38 18,973 1.25POP 6 to 14 w/no education

Between 5 and 10 m2/person

3c 5.10 – 7.41 12.33 – 854.73 6,510 0.43POP 6 to 14 w/no education

Above 10 m2/person

1,519,454 100.00

Population with no access to education in terms of m2 of parks per person

Inside the park’s buffer zone:

34

Findings: Extent of supply and social characteristics of Tijuana’s population

50% has no population 6-14 years old with no access to education

Distribution has no apparent pattern 35

Findings: Extent of supply and social characteristics of population

Distribution of Ageb groups by % of POP 6 to 14 w/no EDU in terms of m2 of park per person

Irregular origin of Tijuana’s urban settlements

Only 17% of parks in this type of urban settlements / heterogeneous distribution 36

Findings: Further research

Source: own preparation based on Alegría & Ordóñez (2005), Implan (2008) and fieldwork.

PND

LFBC

LPABC Sedesol

RFTJPOE RPATJ

National waters

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Water sourcesconservation

Endangered species

conservation NOM

LGEEPA

LF

37

Findings: Rules and regulations

38

In sum…

* Most population has no access to parks;

* There is not a relationship between the spatial distribution of socioeconomic characteristics of the residents with park’s characteristics and accessibility.

* Contribution: diagnosis of Tijuana’s parks, an inventory of city parks;

* An approximation to new forms of management that have emerged around the parks.

* Criticism to rules and regulations in the creation and regulation of parks in the city (1971).

* Similarly, a single indicator is not enough to determine the magnitude of supply of the park service as a quality of life indicator.

* Difficulty degree of slopes is not a factor that influences park accessibility.

Photography: Mesa de Otay view. Heber Huizar personal collection (2012)

24

References

Agyeman, J. & Evans, T. (2003). “Toward Just Sustainability in Urban Communities: Building Equity Rights with Sustainable Solutions” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 590(1): 35-53.Alegría O. & Ordoñez, G. (2005). Legalizando la ciudad: asentamientos informales y procesos de regularización Tijuana. México: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Álvarez G. y Ojeda (2000). La forestación urbana como un mecanismo de reducción de riesgos. Estudios Fronterizos, Nueva Época 1(2): 9-31. Julio-Diciembre. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.Ayuntamiento de Tijuana. (2002). Reglamento de bienes y servicios del Municipio de Tijuana. POEBC. Tomo CIX, núm. 10. 8 de marzo de 2002. Retreived from http://www.tijuana.gob.mx/Reglamentos/pdf/REGLAMENTO%20DE%20BIENES%20Y%20SERVICIOS.pdfBringas, N. & Sánchez, R. (2006). Social vulnerability and disaster risk in Tijuana: preliminary findings. En Clough-Riquelme & Bringas, N. (Eds.), Equidity and sustainable development. Reflexions from the U.S.-México border (pp. 149-173).E.U.: University of California. Córdova A. y Martínez-Soto J. (2014) Beneficios de la naturaleza urbana. En: Ojeda-Revah L. Espejel I. (coord.). (2014). Cuando las áreas verdes se transforman en paisaje. La visión de Baja California. Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Pp.21-50.Hervé Espejo, Dominique (2010). “Noción y elementos de la justicia ambiental: directrices para su aplicación en la planificación territorial y en la evaluación ambiental estratégica” Revista de derecho 23(1): 9-36. Huizar Contreras, Heber (2012). Evaluación de los parques de Tijuana desde un enfoque de justicia ambiental. Mexico: El Colef.Huizar, H. & Ojeda-Revah L. (2014). Los Parques de Tijuana: una perspectiva de justicia ambiental. En Ojeda-Revah L. & Espejel, I. (coord.). Cuando las áreas verdes se transforman en paisaje. La visión de Baja California. (pp. 87-120) México: Colegio de la Frontera Norte.Garrocho, Carlos y Juan Campos (2006). “Un indicador de accesibilidad a unidades y servicios clave para ciudades mexicanas: fundamentos, diseño y aplicación” Economía, sociedad y territorio 6(22): 1-60. Sánchez-Rodríguez, R. (2011). Urban and social vulnerability to climate variability in Tijuana, Mexico. En: Kasperson, R. & Berberian, M. (Eds.), Integrating science and policy. Vulnerability and resilience in Global Environmental Change. New York: Earthscan.187-214.Sedesol. (1999). Sistema normativo de equipamiento urbano. Tomo V. Recreación y Deporte. México. D. F. Sedesol. Recuperado de http:// www.inapam.gob.mx/work/models/SEDESOL/Resource/1592/1/images/recreacion_y_deporte.pdf.The San Diego Foundation (2010). Parks for everyone. Green access for San Diego County. Retreived from http://www.sdfoundation.org/Portals/0/Newsroom/PDF/Reports/parkforeveryone_finalsm.pdf, on 05/28/2015.