Social Sustainability in the Parks of Pomona:

A Case Study

Peter Flores

2

Abstract

The local parks system serves an important function for the residents and communities of a city.

Parks provide recreation, a place for both children and adults to congregate and relax. But there

exists another important and not extensively understood aspect of parks: their social

sustainability. That is to say, the ability of parks to foster social interactions and bring

communities closer together. This paper will first explore the concepts of sustainability and what

it means for a park to be ‘socially sustainable.’ The parks of Pomona, California are not

adequately designed with social sustainability in mind and four of these parks shall be examined,

Ganesha, Lincoln, Tony Cerda, and Phillips Ranch, to see why that is the case.

Defining Social Sustainability

Before we begin exploring the design of Pomona parks we must define what is meant

when we say a park is ‘socially sustainable.’ Social sustainability is a multi-dimensional and

wide ranging concept that covers many avenues of design (Dempsey). As a result describing

what social sustainability actually is can be a vague process. Sustainability has become a

mainstream concept in almost all avenues of development in the 21st Century. There exist three

commonly accepted domains of Sustainability: Economic, Environmental, and Social (Adams).

The sustainable aspects of Economy and Environment are no doubt familiar to most as they have

been extensively studied, written about, and applied. It is within the social aspect where we enter

a gray area. Social Sustainability is the least studied and least understood domain of sustainable

development (Magis). There are currently many competing and debated definitions of the term

but for our purposes we shall use the one offered by the Western Australia Council of Social

Services:

3

"Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes; systems;

structures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future

generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable

communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good

quality of life." -(WACOSS)

To say a park is socially sustainable is to say it provides qualities to the local residents that

encourage a growing and thriving community. The park should connect people within and

outside of the community and cause a fostering of new relationships in addition to providing

recreational activities for the residents.

Why Social Sustainability?

A socially sustainable park is one that provides something for everyone. Not just a luxury

for those that can afford it, but necessary features that benefit the entire community that the park

services. The park should encourage social interaction between community members by

providing venues and opportunity to meet and talk with others. Regular social interactions with

neighbors helps to break down barriers and encourage understanding and personal growth. It’s

very easy to dismiss the existence of people you only ever briefly see in passing and know

nothing about; but put a name to a face, to get to know a family, to realize that they’re people

too, that fosters compassion and understanding. Designing a park with sustainable aspects of

social interaction may instill ideas of compassion and civic duty within and outside of the

community

There has been a recent trend of newly developed parks specifically designed to exclude

certain communities and discourage social diversity. A new era of privatization and the birth of

new methods of planning and management has led to parks that are only welcome to a select

4

few; namely the middle class and tourists (Low). This is a problem as the people who benefit

most from parks are the lower class and poor, those who come to rely on the amenities and

systems public parks are meant to provide. The number of truly open public space is rapidly

decreasing (Low) and as a result communities are losing an important piece of infrastructure that

serves as a tool of self-improvement and democracy.

A socially sustainable system not only provides amenities to the community but helps

those communities thrive and evolve into something more for future generations (Magis). It is

here we may see the point of designing parks that fit within a socially sustainable framework: so

that they may make people better.

Assessing Sustainability

The most common critique of social sustainability is one of metrics, how do we measure

the sustainability of a park (Adams)? If one is to set goals for sustainability in a project’s design,

then it is necessary to have a system that can measure and define whether the goals of the project

have been met. There are currently many different competing systems and metrics for measuring

the sustainability of a project, whether top-down or bottom-up, but all of these are exposed to

varying degrees of criticisms as to their effectiveness (Magee).

For the purposes of this paper the parks will be examined from a design standpoint

exploring the amenities said parks provide and whether the design decision of the parks

encourage park use and social interaction. Of particular focus will be the park’s Accessibility,

Aesthetic, Condition, Features, Safety, and its Social environments. These focus points where

determined by McCormack, et al. (2010) and their qualitative research into the important

determining factors of park use; and therefore people’s use of social features designed into the

park.

5

Parks of Pomona

The city of Pomona, California maintains 27 parks within its city limits, this paper will

focus on four of those parks: Ganesha, Lincoln, Phillips Ranch, and Tony Cerda. The parks were

visited up to twelve times each between the hours of 11:00am and 4:00pm all figures presented

in this paper were taken by the author across multiple visits as a visual aide to emphasize

sustainability issues. The parks of Pomona do not provide enough features to encourage social

interaction and that is to the detriment of the communities the parks are meant to serve.

Ganesha Park

Ganesha Park is by far the largest park in the city of Pomona and offers the most in terms

of encouraging social interaction. The park includes amenities for all ages including tennis

courts, basketball courts, children's play areas, and a swimming pool (available during the

summer) as well as large grassy fields where adolescents may play soccer and football. The

presence of these features encourages play among children and adolescents fostering social

bonds throughout the community as well as providing a form of after school recreational activity

to the benefit of both the adolescents/children and their parents. Near the children’s play area

there is a large gazebo, where groups can reserve a spot for events, and an expanse of flat

concrete suitable to host small public gatherings.

6

Figure 1. Children’s play area at Ganesha Park

On the opposite side of the park there are several more large gazebos with sitting areas where a

birthday parties and a firefighter’s potluck were observed to be taking place. The park also

contains a small amphitheater where bands or other groups can reserve space and hold concerts

or other events. Another large aspect of Ganesha Park are the trails leading through the hills in

the back of the park proper. Extensive hiking and biking trails are available for public use and

are easily accessible from the main park area.

In terms of the condition and aesthetic of the park, most of the equipment and

infrastructure is at acceptable standards of wear. The trails however are often times unmarked

giving the sense of ‘unofficial’ use and the areas that are paved and/or clearly marked are of poor

condition with cracks and other deteriorating signs. Trash is a major issue alongside the trails as

well, numerous food wrappings and other plastic articles can be found aplenty strewn about

along the paths leading into the hills. In the main area of the park however, this is less of a

7

concern with clearly visible trash receptacles available and the presence of sanitation workers to

collect said trash. The results make for a cleaner aesthetic in the park proper.

Figure 2. More gazebos and a large field of grass

Access to the park is a mixed issue. There are plenty of parking spaces available for

private transportation and the park is located next to residential areas making it ideal for a simple

walk for members of that community. However, the street separating the park and these

residential areas is a busy one as it connects to two major highways to the North and South and

also grants access to the nearby Pomona Fairplex. The busy street combined with limited

crosswalks across makes access to the park a safety issue especially for young children.

8

Figure 3. Small amphitheater

While Ganesha Park does a lot right in terms of provided standards of social

sustainability perhaps its major issue is one of safety. The park hosts a large number of the

homeless population especially within the hills next to the park. A sizeable community of

homeless also occupy the gazebos and the amphitheater pictured in Figures 2 and 3 above (the

presence of homeless is more prevalent during the weekdays when the park sees less use). They

can also be found within the bathrooms occupying stalls and the sinks, making trips to the

restroom a concern for safety. The presence of the homeless while unfortunate creates an issue

for the park and community that does not feel safe using the park with a large transient

population that must be cleared out by the police before the features of the park can be used.

Overall, Ganesha Park offers much in terms of social sustainability. It provides large

open areas for community gatherings and events, contains many amenities for children, and the

presence of trails in the hills encourages physical fitness and other activities. Accessibility is a

9

minor concern while safety is a major issue that needs to be addressed by increased policing and

patrols through the park.

Figure 4. Trails into the hills

Figure 5. A homeless person’s sleeping area

10

Lincoln Park

This park is located in the heart of a residential neighborhood making its accessibility

quite high for members of the surrounding community. The streets surrounding the park are not

often busy and are quiet making it a peaceful park for a relaxing stroll. Unfortunately that is most

of what that park can be used for as its extremely small size makes community activities an

issue. There is a small children’s play area in one corner and some sitting areas under a tree in

another but not much else. No large grassy fields are present as the grass areas are bisected by

concrete paths through the park. In fact, the only use observed was in residents walking their

dogs or going for a jogging session.

Figure 6. One of the many paths through Lincoln Park

The park is quite lovely and beautiful to walk through with a small rose garden in the

center. Safety is certainly not an issue no suspicious characters or other unsafe elements are

present and the park grounds are well maintained. But aside from the wonderful aesthetics

Lincoln Park simply doesn’t have that much to offer in terms of social interactions between the

community. Its design seem to primarily be for a peaceful vista for the residents to have a quick

morning walk through and almost no other consideration (aside from the one play area). A

11

removal of a path to create a large expanse of grass would do much to encourage a large

community gathering but due to the proximity of the park to homes and the general serenity of

the neighborhood it is likely this park is deliberately designed for low use and park attendance.

Figure 7. Children play area in use

Figure 8. Quiet streets with adjacent homes

12

Tony Cerda Park

Similar to Lincoln Park, Tony Cerda Park is located in the middle of a residential

neighborhood. However it is slightly larger than the previous park and hosts a substantial

decrease in aesthetic.

Figure 9. Tony Cerda Park

The concrete walkways are dirty and cracked, there are large patches of dirt and dead grass

throughout the park, and graffiti is prevalent all around including on the children’s play area.

Although it is near homes, the park sits adjacent to a wide busy street with poorly visible

faded cross-ways painted on the asphalt and only stop signs to regulate traffic for residents to

cross into the park. The area itself is low-income and large group of young males around the park

give the feeling of a gang presence during visits to the park. In addition to these safety concerns

there is a small homeless ‘camp’ across the field from the children’s play area that discouraged

he use of that area of the park.

13

Figure 10. Graffiti on the play area

Figure 11. Homeless person across the field from above play area

Many of the issues of Tony Cerda Park are ones of maintenance and lack of upkeep.

Most of the concrete walkways and areas are badly cracked and damaged leading to tripping

hazards for young children and the elderly. Potential crime in the area and the general condition

of the park make it less attractive for local resident’s use despite the close proximity to housing.

14

Phillips Ranch Park

Phillips may be described as a nice compromise between Lincoln and Ganesha Park. The

park is fairly large with a wide open grassy field where families and children were regularly

observed playing various sports. Like Lincoln, Phillips Ranch Park is quite clean and maintains a

nice if simple aesthetic while being in a very safe area.

Figure 12. Large field with activities going on

The park is situated in the middle of the suburbs, ease of access, with an adjacent school making

it an excellent resource for afterschool recreational activities and being a great service to the

surrounding community. The park also contains a series of paved trails that run throughout the

residential areas and even connect to another park, Country Crossings, nearby. In addition, there

is a small wall climbing rock and a children’s play area with nearby sitting areas where parents

can watch their children.

Despite the lack of a central open space specifically designed for community gatherings

and other amenities such as basketball courts, Phillips Ranch does promote social interaction to a

degree. The park was always occupied by a sizeable amount of people from the surrounding

15

areas and features such as the trails through the neighborhood make for opportunities to interact

with neighbors during a hike or a jog. As always the park design does have room for

improvement but certainly ranks higher than some of Pomona’s other parks in terms of

encouraging and fostering social interaction.

Figure 13. Trails leading through residential neighborhood

Figure 14. Seating with play area in background

16

Conclusion

Social sustainability is a vague concept that only recently has begun receiving attention.

It is often times difficult to establish concrete goals to encourage social sustainability and even

more difficult to attempt to measure the success of those goals. By beginning to look at the social

aspect of sustainability and how urban infrastructure, specifically parks, fits in to that aspect, we

can learn more about social cohesion and community strengthening. The parks of Pomona can at

best be considered acceptable in terms of social sustainability. Ganesha and to a lesser extent

Phillips Ranch Park both succeed, in part, in enhancing the social aspects of parks. Meanwhile

parks such as Lincoln and Tony Cerda offer few social aspects, either because of deliberate

design decisions or other issues that make park attendance less attractive to the local residents.

The importance of social sustainability is in its ability to further serve the community. Parks

make people better; whether through physical activity, social interactions, or having a place for

kids to play while parents are at work. By focusing on every aspect of sustainability and proper

park design, cities can make better parks to make better people.

References

Adams, W. (Director) (2006, January 29). The Future of Sustainability Re-thinking

Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century. IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting.

The World Conservation Union.

Cranz, G., and M. Boland. "Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks."

Landscape Journal (2004): 102-20.

Dempsey, Nicola, Glen Bramley, Sinéad Power, and Caroline Brown. "The Social Dimension

of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability." Sust. Dev. Sustainable

Development (2009): 289-300.

17

Harnik, Peter. Inside City Parks. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute ;, 2000. Print.

Low, Setha M., and Dana Taplin. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space & Cultural Diversity.

Austin: U of Texas, 2005. 1-35.

Low, Setha M., and Dana Taplin. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space & Cultural Diversity.

Austin: U of Texas, 2005. 69-100.

Magee, Liam, Andy Scerri, Paul James, James A. Thom, Lin Padgham, Sarah Hickmott, Hepu

Deng, and Felicity Cahill. "Reframing Social Sustainability Reporting: Towards an Engaged

Approach." Environ Dev Sustain Environment, Development and Sustainability (2012): 225-43.

Magis, K., & Shinn, C. (2009). Emergent themes of social sustainability. In J. Dillard, V. Dujon

& M.C. King (Eds.), Understanding the Social Aspect of Sustainability. New York, NY:

Routledge.

McCormack, Gavin R., Melanie Rock, Ann M. Toohey, and Danica Hignell. "Characteristics of

Urban Parks Associated with Park Use and Physical Activity: A Review of Qualitative

Research." Health & Place (2010): 712-26.

Saurí, David, Marc Parés, and Elena Domene. "Changing Conceptions Of Sustainability In

Barcelona's Public Parks*." Geographical Review: 23-36.

Social Cohesion in a Shifting World. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development, 2011.