CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERISTY POMONA

Trash Accumulation in Pomona Parks

A study of Ganesha Park and Phillips Ranch Park in relation to economic status and pollution

William McDonnell

5/25/2015

Abstract

Past research has shown economic class divides can be observed in public park space.

The location of parks, size of parks, and the use of parks have all been researched in regards to

class differences, but no previous quantitative research has been done to try and determine a

relationship between the cleanliness of public parks in relation to class and economic status. The

purpose of this study is to fill this void of knowledge and to show that economic class plays a

role in park pollution. Using Ganesha Park and Phillips Ranch Park in the city of Pomona

California as models, trash particulates were counted and trash densities per yard for each park

were determined using a traditional line transect methodology. Ganesha Park was used to

represent a lower economic neighborhood within the city of Pomona while Phillips Ranch Park

was used to represent a higher economic neighborhood in the city of Pomona. The study showed

that Ganesha Park did have more trash per yard than Phillips Ranch parks at .812 and .643 pieces

of trash per yard respectively. While both parks were heavily polluted with trash particulates, the

data confirmed that parks located in neighborhoods with a higher average household income

were less affected by solid pollution in comparison to parks were the household income was

lower. Future research could expand these results on a larger scale, looking in-between cities of

varying economic statuses to determine if the trend found in Pomona California was applicable

to parks throughout the region. Another idea for future research would be to determine if park

cleanliness affected park use in Pomona California.

Introduction

Public parks provide an escape from the urban hustle and act as a central location for

people to come together for recreation or relaxation. Relaxation, the chance to be in nature, and

the ability to escape the city were the top 3 reason that park visitors chose to visit a park

according to a study of over 750 park goers (Chiesura). No matter the reason for a visit, parks

have continued to be a popular past time throughout the United States. This past time has

unfortunately become more accessible and usable to those with more fortunate economic

upbringings and lifestyles. Studies conducted in the Los Angeles area have found that low

income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with a high minority population have less access to

public parks (Wolch et al.). Further research that looked at 50 different parks in neighborhoods

of varying economic status in Southern California found that low income neighborhood park

space was less used, even after artificially adjusting park size values, staffing numbers, and

program numbers (Cohen et al.). Additional reasons for low usage such as park safety were

looked into as a reason for the decreased park use, although no connection between safety and

low income areas lower park use was found (Cohen et al.). There was a correlation between the

number of part time staff, the number of supervised activities, and how well individuals knew

park staff on park use (Cohen et al.). This data suggests that even if more park land was added to

low income neighborhoods, it would not be utilized to its fullest potential.

The relationship between underutilized parks and low income neighborhoods needs to be

highlighted and better understood in order to properly address the problem of disproportionate

park usage. I suggest that parks located in low income areas are subject to higher amounts of

pollution, and are thus used less frequently than similar park counterparts found in higher income

areas. Pollution can be defined as a variety of environmental degradations, but for the purpose of

this paper I have limited the definition of pollution to exclude variables like air and water

quality. Instead the focus is on physical pollution, i.e. litter of any size, since pieces of litter can

been observed, counted, and recorded more easily than other types of pollution. Since trash can

be easily seen, it is also the most likely pollution factor to affect park use, since smalls changes

in air and water quality are often only detectable with high tech equipment that a regular park

user would possess.

High levels of trash and pollution in a park diminish the benefits and value it provides to

a visitor. Chiesura found that being able to escape the city, and to be in nature were two of the

top three reasons visitors came to a park (Chiesura). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines

nature as everything in the world, excluding anything man made (“Nature Definition”). By

definition parks high in trash and pollution are farther from nature than parks free of trash and

pollution, since trash is a purely human by-product. Nature is thus inherently free of trash, and

the ability of a park to act as a natural escape is hindered by the presence of trash.

If one of the main reasons people travel to parks is to enter nature, then it should be no

surprise that heavily polluted parks would be less visited. Francis Noe of the Department of

Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at Clemson University found that litter was the least

tolerated park impact according to national park visitors (Noe et al.). 971 survey responses

looking at litter, erosion, dead trees and animals, crowding and congestion, and commercial

encroachment were analyzed and litter related impacts of varying intensities were perceived the

worst (Noe et al.). I suspect that this lack of tolerance for pollution in state parks is also present

in public parks, and that the lack of utilization of public park space in economically challenged

areas can be at least partially explained by higher levels of pollution.

Pomona California offers an ideal location to test this hypothesis since the average

household income in the city falls short of the state’s average national household income, but the

city is home to a higher income neighborhood, Phillips Ranch as well. Ganesha Park is one of

the most highly used parks located in the heart of the Pomona and was selected to represent

Pomona and the majority of its residents that fall below the states average household income.

Phillips Ranch is a neighborhood within Pomona located on the outskirts of the city, and has a

much higher average house hold income than the rest of the city of Pomona. Phillips Ranch Park,

located inside the Phillips Ranch neighborhood, was selected to represent the higher socio-

economic group within the city of Pomona. Past research has neglected to identify pollution as a

reason for lower park use in less well-off communities, and so primary research was done to look

into this relationship within the city of Pomona California using these two parks as case studies.

Methods: Determining the Sites of Study

Pomona has an average household income of just below $50,000 while California as a

whole has a national household income of just over $60,000 ("QuickFacts from the US Census

Bureau, Pomona CA”). Pomona also has a population of which 21.6% of residents live below the

poverty line ("QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau, Pomona CA”). The state average is

15.9% of the population living below the poverty line ("QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau,

Pomona CA”). Pomona does have a neighborhood, Phillips Ranch that has a significantly higher

income than the rest of the city. Phillips Ranch’s household average income is above $80,000

putting Phillips Ranch over the Pomona and California averages ("Census Explore”). In order to

isolate Phillips Ranch’s average household income from the rest of the city, only census tracks

found in the Phillips Ranch community were used. Census tracts 4033.16, 4033.17, and 4033.18

were used to identify the Phillips Ranch Community and are based on the 2013 ACS and 2012

CBP U.S census data. A census map, Map 1., that highlights tracts 4033.16, 4033.17, and

4033.18 can be seen below. For this study, the city of Pomona California as whole was

determined to be low on the socio-economic scale due to the below average household income,

and Phillips ranch was determined to be high on the socio-economic scale due to the above

average household income.

Map 1. Census tracts 4033.16-4033.18 that identify the Phillips Ranch Neighborhood

("Census Explore”)

While there are two parks located in the Phillips Ranch neighborhood, Phillips Ranch

Park and Country Crossing Park, Phillips Ranch Park was selected as the area of research. This is

because after visiting both locations I determined that it was more widely used of the two parks

and that the park was more similar in size and design to Ganesha Park, making for a better

comparison. Ganesha Park was selected for its ease of access, being located just off of the 10

freeway. On Saturday, April 11th, 2015 just after 1pm I visited both Ganesha Park and Phillips

Ranch Park. The initial plan was to record observations on the 11th, but Phillips Ranch Park was

hosting a local elementary school’s field day. Due to large inflatable attractions covering most of

the park, I chose to return at a later time. To keep my observations consistent, I did not record

observations at Ganesha on the 11th but instead used the time to scout out locations for transect

lines at both parks. I returned on Monday, April 20th, 2015 around 1:00pm to conduct the actual

observations and record my findings at both parks.

Methods: Trash Density Calculations

In order to determine the levels of pollution present at the two locations, a standard line

transect method was set up and carried out at both park locations. The first step was to establish

a transect and to note the distance traveled from end to end. The second step was to walk the

transect, carefully observing, counting, and recording each piece of trash seen without leaving

the transect line. After the amount of trash was recorded, a line transect formula was used to

determine the trash density. The benefit of using a line transect method to determine the trash

density was that trash size could be eliminated as a variable. At both parks larger pieces of trash

could be seen farther away, while smaller pieces could only be seen if they were close to

transect. Counting each piece, independent of size, was used to come up with a total that was

inputted into the function below.

(total # of objects [trash pieces] seen = density * transect length * detectability function)

The transect locations were purposefully laid out to maximize the distance traveled while

still covering a variety of features present at both parks. Features at both parks included large

fields, areas paved with cement, and an areas covered by trees. The Ganesha transect had

features unique to only that one park, including a sand pit and basketball courts. Figure 1 and

Figure 2 below show the transect lines walked at both Ganesha and Phillips Ranch Park. The

Ganesha Park transect was .11 miles or 197 yards long. The Phillips Ranch Park transect was .12

miles or 214 yards long. Since the distances of the transects were long, rather than bringing a

measuring device to the park, a GIS based system was used to determine the lengths of the

transects. Specifically, Google Earth was used to measure the distance. Specific starting and

ending locations were recorded, and these marks were placed into the system, which then

provided an exact distance traveled.

Figure 1. Visual representation of the transect line running through Ganesha Park

Figure 2. Visual representation of the transect line running through Phillips Ranch Park

As each transect was walked, each piece of trash seen was recorded. For this survey, a

piece of trash was any non-living piece of material that would not be found in the area if there

was no human presence and that was left behind and not thrown away in a proper waste

receptacle. A few examples of trash seen include chip bags, safety pins, water bottles, pieces of

paper, candy wrappers, and cigarettes. Example of items not considered trash included fallen

leaves, food waste like lettuce leaves or slices of tomatoes, and items belonging to someone

present at the park. The last point is an important distinction since a water bottle on the field was

considered trash, but a water bottle on a blanket of a transient in the park was not. In this study

trash had to be left behind, if the owners of the trash were still present at the park, there was a

possibility it would be thrown away when they exited the park, and were thus excluded. Figure 3

below shows a heavily polluted location along the Ganesha Transect. One important notation is

that a section of Ganesha Park had confetti from what I assume was from a broken piñata. A

relatively small area area had over 23 individual pieces of trash associated with it, and was

located next to, but not inside of an empty trash bin. This trash was included into the totals.

Figure 3. A heavily polluted section of the Ganesha transect, adjacent to the basketball

courts.

The detectability function was set at 85%. The detectability function is an approximation

of what percent of the trash can be visually seen. With many of the pieces of trash being very

small in size, lacking color due to sun bleaching, and being obscured by taller sections of uncut

grass, 85% was used as a conservative estimate. Setting the function at 85% means that all of the

calculations assume that 15% of the trash present is not easily seen by the human eye while

walking the transect. Figure 4. below shows an example of how trash could be easily overlooked.

Figure 4. A safety pin hidden inside of a long uncut section of grass at Phillips Ranch Park.

Results Ganesha Park

[136 pieces of trash = (Density) * (197 yards) * (85%)] = .812 pieces of trash per yard.

Results Phillips Ranch Park

[(117 pieces of trash = (Density) * (214 yards) * (85%)] = .643 pieces of trash per yard.

Discussion and Inferences

The data collected during the field sampling shows that the original assumption that parks

located in higher income areas are less prone to pollution than parks located in lower income

areas is true. While the data from this study only shows a 16.9% difference in the pollution

densities between the parks, I believe that a prolonged version of this study over a yearlong

period with weekly observations would show a larger range in density values that would serve as

stronger evidence for my hypothesis. One explanation to the low difference between pollution

levels between the parks was that Phillips Ranch Park had a higher than average trash density the

day I took recorded my observations. When I visited Phillips Ranch Park on April 11th, the

elementary school next door was having a school field day in the park, bringing abnormally high

levels of foot traffic and thus trash into the park. I waited over a week until April 20th in hopes

to limit the effects of this high use event on my data, but it is possible that much of the trash I

observed came from that event. Again, a longer study and a larger pool of data would help

average high use periods with low use periods.

Another dilemma faced during observations was a pile of confetti, found in the field of

Ganesha Park. In a roughly 4 foot by 4 foot area there were 23 pieces of trash. I counted and

included the trash pieces into the Ganesha Park numbers since they fit my definition of trash. I

made the assumption that the confetti came from a piñata from a party at the park. Since

children’s parties are a regular use of park space and I made the decision that the pile of confetti

was not an outlier. During a prolonged study, it would be possible to discover if party trash is or

is not a common occurrence and whether or not it should be considered an outlier in a larger data

set.

While I can only infer why Ganesha Park had more trash than Phillips Ranch Park based

on my time spent at each, and future research would need to be done to verify my inferences, I

believe that a large part of the difference comes from the types of people utilizing the park.

During my visit to Ganesha, I noticed a good number of transient individuals living inside of the

park. This was not the case at Phillips Ranch Park where both times I visited was more populated

by elementary school kids from the neighboring school. The school children had brought with

them trash bags to collect the trash form the after school event they were holding on April 11th,

in addition to the trash cans provided at the parks. While some of the children’s trash ended up

on the ground, I noticed an effort to keep the park clean. The transients on the other hand had

trash lying around their squatting locations that would inevitably disperse throughout the park

over time.

Recent cuts to park funding may be partially to blame for the high levels of trash found in

both Pomona parks. Park maintenance is included under the public works department in Pomona.

In the last four years, the public works department has lost 17 positions, dropping from 184

employees to 167 between 2010 and 2014 ("City of Pomona - 2013-2014 Fiscal Budget"). The

city had a budget of $97million in 2008, but that budget has since been cut to $86 million in

2014 ("City of Pomona - 2014-2015 Fiscal Budget"). Non-essential services like the parks and

recreation department are the first to lose funding when more important allocations of funds like

public protection arise. Pomona has higher crime rates than its neighboring cities, and could be

financially strained due to high crime (“The Homicide Report - Pomona").

The possibilities for future research are expansive. The trends between trash pollution

and economic class could be observed for other parks throughout the city of Pomona, between

Pomona and other neighboring cities, and even between counties or other larger scale

comparisons. Another topic of research would be to investigate the correlation between the

numbers of park visitors between parks of varying trash pollution levels.

Conclusion

The finding that parks located in low income areas are more prone to pollution may help

offer a partial answer to the question found in Cohen et al.’s studies as to why parks located in

low income neighborhoods are less visited. Pollution devalues the societal services provided by

parks, and makes visits less rewarding for park goers as seen in Chiesura and Noe et al.’s

research. The trash we all produce has started to flow over into areas that were once designated

as natural escapes. When parks no longer offer an escape from the city and the problems

associated with an urban life style, then they have lost a majority of their value and will be used

less frequently.

References

"Census Explore” United States Census. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 May 2015.

https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html

"City of Pomona - 2013-2014 Fiscal Budget" City of Pomona California. N.p., n.d. Web. 25

May 2015.

http://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/index.php/finance/2013-2014-fiscal-budget

"City of Pomona - 2014-2015 Fiscal Budget" City of Pomona California. N.p., n.d. Web. 25

May 2015.

http://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/index.php/finance/2014-2015-fiscal-budget

Cohen, Deborah A., Bing Han, Kathryn Pitkin Derose, Stephanie Williamson, Terry Marsh, Jodi

Rudick, and Thomas L. Mckenzie. "Neighborhood Poverty, Park Use, and Park-based

Physical Activity in a Southern California City." Social Science & Medicine 75.12

(2012): 2317-325. Web.

Chiesura, Anna. "The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City."Landscape and Urban

Planning 68.1 (2004): 129-38. Web.

"Nature Definition" Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 25 May 2015.

Noe, Francis P., William E. Hammitt, and Robert D. Bixler. "Park User Perceptions of Resource

and Use Impacts Under Varied Situations in Three National Parks." Journal of

Environmental Management 49.3 (1997): 323-36. Web.

"QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau, Pomona CA." US Census Bureau, n.d. Web. 25 May

2015.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0658072.html

"The Homicide Report - Pomona" Los Angeles Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 25

http://homicide.latimes.com/neighborhood/pomona

Wolch, Jennifer, John P. Wilson, and Jed Fehrenbach. "Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles:

An Equity-Mapping Analysis." Urban Geography 26.1 (2005): 4-35. Web.