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

Why are parks important to cities? Green space environmental services (parks) Reduces solar radiation

 

Reduces extreme temperatures Increases humidity Reduces GHG emittions

Conserves biodiversity Improves air quality Reduces air pollution and its costs

Reduces noise pollution

Energy saving and its costs

Deflects wind Modulates climate

Produces shade Captures carbon

O2

Reduces runoff Reduce landslides and mudflows Generates direct income $ Increases property value Aquifer recharge and water quality improvement

Physical and mental health Savings in medical care

Environmental and social amenities

Urban sprawl

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

Fragmentation

Connects people with nature Environmental education Improves quality of life Cultural, ethic and spiritual values Opportunities for recreation, reinforces a sense of community, social cohesion, and social capital Rules and regulations Management

20

Tijuana context Population growth of Tijuana 1.8

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

Millions of people

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6

0.4 0.2 0.0

1938

1950

1959

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

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

Vegetation coverage loss Accelerated urban sprawl (Bringas & Sánchez, 2006). High migration flow (Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2011). 43 % of Tijuana’s urban settlements has irregular origin (Alegría & Ordoñez, 2005). Photography: Zona Río view. Personal collection

21

Theoretical framework

Environmental justice approach

Sustainable development

Environmental justice Distributive justice/Participatory justice

Based on socioeconomic characteristics

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).

Accessibility

Urban planning

Parks

Rules and regulations

Environmental services

Citizens and institutions

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).

Management

22

Accessibility as a measure of EJ “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).

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

23

Research question 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?

Hypothesis Tijuana parks are not equally accessible to the entire population and scarcity, quality, distribution and accessibility are related to the concentration and distribution of the population without access to education.

24

Methodology Physical | Management | Population Information sources

Variables

Parks

Surface area Vegetation coverage and equipment

Park quality

Extent of supply

Slope Contours 1998 Public or private access

Park buffer zone

INEGI

Inhabitants Population Access to education Management

Administration

Population age 6 to 14 no education (proxy to low income) Rules, regulations and concept

Very low, low, fair, good

m2 park/person 400m – slope or access

Extent of supply according to accessibility m2 of park/person in buffer zone

City, administrative boroughs and Basic Geostatistical Area

Maps (aerial photography and fieldwork) Documents

Indicators

Quantity

Aerial photography 2008

Probing

Performance of parks | Environmental justice

Extent of supply according to socioeconomic characteristics

m2 park/person Vs. Population 6 to 14 no education

25

Findings: How many parks are there in Tijuana?

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

54 % < 3 mil m2

82 % < Professional soccer field

26

Findings: Extent of supply

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

27

Findings: road landscaping CamellonesUrban y glorietas (2012) • Increases to 1.43 % of the urban surface area (3,859,128.14 m²) • 2.56 m² per person

450

1.4

Source: Huizar & Ojeda-Revah (2014).

1.2

350 1.0

300

250

0.8

200

0.6

150

0.4

100 0.2

50 0

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

% of urban surface area

Hectare of green space

400

0.0 1989

1994

2001

2008

2010

urban road landscaping (ha)*

parks (ha)

% parks/ urban area

parks m²/ inhabitant

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

Source: Huizar & Ojeda-Revah (2014).

28

Findings: Who manages Tijuana’s parks? 5%

1%

Municipality (attended) Municipio (atendidos)

10% Colonos Settlers

3% Colonosindegated fraccionamiento Settlers cerrado communities

10%

NGO OSC

53% 28 % Residents

Constructora (atendidos) Builder company (attended) Abandoned parks (municipality Parques abandonados or builder company) (municipio o constructora)

18%

Public or private access: 87% are public

Otro Other

29

Findings: Parks quality Irrigation needs of the species used for forestation in 1996 20%

31%

Number of parks by % of vegetation cover and variety of equipment 49%

45 40

abundante

35

regular

resistente a la sequía

Source: Ojeda & Álvarez (2000).

30

25

Maintenance needs of the species used for forestation in 1996

20 15

3%

10

14%

5 46%

0

37%

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% % vegetation cover

0

1

2

3

>3

# types of equipment

Source: Huizar & Ojeda (2014). constante

regular

ocasional

bajo

Source: Ojeda & Álvarez (2000).

30

Findings: Parks quality

Good Fair Low Very low Basic Geostatistical Area

Average: Fair.

Vegetation: Low

31

Findings: Parks quality Parks: Quality Parque Teniente Guerrero, Delegación Centro (Good)

Parque El Lago, Delegación Cerro Colorado (Fair)

Parque El Refugio, Delegación La Presa (Low).

Photographs: personal collection (2012)

32

Findings: Parks accessibility

84 % buffer zone in flat terrain 35 % Population

3 % Private 3.7 m2/person 564,033 residents 4 % POP 6-14 w/no EDU

33

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

Con parques

Sin parques

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

Intervals of POP 6 to 14 w/no EDU (%)

Intervals of Sq. meter of parks per person

1a

0

0

31,530

2.08

1b

0.71 – 9.96

0

932,484

61.37

1c

10.06 – 36.67

0

18,140

1.19

2a

0

0.31 – 7.57

26,150

1.72

2b

0

11.23 – 250.33

2,747

0.18

3a

0.60 – 11.41

0.02 – 4.71

482,920

31.78

3b

0.85 – 4.02

5.06 – 9.38

18,973

1.25

3c

5.10 – 7.41

12.33 – 854.73

6,510

0.43

Inside the park’s buffer zone: 50% has no population 6-14 years old with no access to education

POP

% POP

Notes People w/no access to parks | Without POP 6 to 14 w/no education People w/no access to parks | Low % POP 6 to 14 w/no education People w/no access to parks | Highest % POP 6 to 14 w/no education No POP 6 to 14 w/no education Below de 10m2/person No POP 6 to 14 w/no education Above 10 m2/person POP 6 to 14 w/no education Below 5m2/person POP 6 to 14 w/no education Between 5 and 10 m2/person POP 6 to 14 w/no education Above 10 m2/person

1,519,454 100.00

34

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

Distribution has no apparent pattern

35

Findings: Further research Irregular origin of Tijuana’s urban settlements

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

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

36

Findings: Rules and regulations Climate change adaptation and mitigation

LGEEPA

Water sources conservation

Endangered species conservation NOM

LPABC

PND National waters

Sedesol

LF LFBC POE

RPATJ

RFTJ

37

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)

38

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): 931. 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.pdf Bringas, 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.

24