Urban Parks in the Twin Cities Reveal Hidden Inequality in Access to Green Space

Urban parks are often celebrated as one of the great equalizers of city life. They offer places to exercise, relax, socialize, and cool down during hot summers. In the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, park access is frequently highlighted as a civic success story, with 99% of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park. On the surface, this statistic suggests that green space is widely and fairly available. However, new research shows that this commonly used measure only tells part of the story.

A recent study from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health takes a deeper look at what park access actually means. Instead of focusing solely on how close people live to parks, the researchers examined how much parkland surrounds neighborhoods. Their findings reveal significant disparities that are often hidden behind impressive citywide rankings.

Looking Beyond Proximity to Parks

Most park access metrics rely on proximity. If residents can reach a park within a short walk, the area is considered well served. Minneapolis and St. Paul regularly rank among the top “green cities” in the United States using this approach. While proximity is important, it does not capture the size, capacity, or usability of nearby parks.

The research team set out to understand whether the amount of park acreage near where people live influences physical activity, especially among adolescents. This is an important question, as adolescence is a critical period when lifelong health habits are formed.

The Data Behind the Study

The researchers used data from Project EAT (Eating and Activity over Time), a long-running study that tracks health behaviors among young people. The analysis included just over 2,200 adolescents living in the Twin Cities, all of whom resided within a 10-minute walk of at least one park.

Using geographic information system (GIS) mapping, the team calculated how much of the land around each participant’s home was designated as park space. This allowed them to go beyond simple distance measurements and quantify the density of parkland in each neighborhood.

Introducing the Concept of Urban Park Oases

From this analysis, the researchers developed a new concept called Urban Park Oases. A neighborhood qualifies as an Urban Park Oasis if it meets two conditions: residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, and at least 10% of the surrounding land area is parkland.

This distinction is crucial. Two neighborhoods may both have a nearby park, but one might be surrounded by expansive green spaces, trails, and recreation areas, while the other may only have access to a small, crowded park. The Urban Park Oases framework captures this difference.

Physical Activity and Park Acreage

One of the study’s key findings relates to physical activity levels. Adolescents living in Urban Park Oases reported about 15 additional minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity compared to peers in neighborhoods with less park acreage.

While 15 minutes per week may sound modest, public health experts note that even small increases in physical activity can have meaningful long-term benefits, especially when these habits are established early in life. Larger parks tend to offer more opportunities for sports, walking, cycling, and informal play, which may explain the difference.

Unequal Distribution of Parkland

Perhaps the most striking result of the study is how unevenly park acreage is distributed across the Twin Cities. While proximity to parks is relatively consistent citywide, racially and ethnically minoritized adolescents and those from low-income households were significantly less likely to live in acreage-rich neighborhoods.

In other words, many young people from historically marginalized communities technically live near parks, but those parks are often smaller and offer fewer opportunities for sustained physical activity. This disparity highlights how traditional metrics can obscure deeper inequities.

How Citywide Rankings Can Be Misleading

Minneapolis and St. Paul frequently appear near the top of national park rankings that focus on walkability and proximity. These rankings are not incorrect, but they can be misleading when viewed in isolation. The Urban Park Oases metric shows that even cities with strong overall park systems can have persistent neighborhood-level disparities.

This finding challenges planners, policymakers, and residents to rethink what “equitable access” really means. It is not just about having a park nearby, but about having access to sufficient, usable, and high-quality green space.

Why Park Size Matters for Health

Larger parks tend to support a wider range of activities, from organized sports to informal recreation and nature exposure. They can also provide environmental benefits such as heat reduction, improved air quality, and stormwater management. Smaller parks, while valuable, may not offer the same range of benefits, particularly in densely populated neighborhoods.

The study emphasizes that overlooking park size has been a long-standing issue in urban planning and public health. By focusing too narrowly on proximity, cities may unintentionally reinforce existing inequalities.

Implications for Urban Planning and Policy

The researchers recommend that municipalities test the 10% park acreage threshold within their own communities to better understand local disparities. They also encourage cities to adopt land-use and park investment policies that intentionally expand green space in underserved neighborhoods.

This could include acquiring land for new parks, expanding existing parks, or redesigning underused spaces to increase usable green areas. Such strategies require long-term planning and political will, but they are essential for addressing inequities that affect health across generations.

Why Adolescents Are Central to This Conversation

Focusing on adolescents is especially important because physical activity patterns developed during these years often persist into adulthood. Limited access to substantial parkland can contribute to lower activity levels and higher health risks over time.

Ensuring equitable access to large, functional green spaces is therefore not just an urban design issue, but a public health priority with long-term consequences.

Rethinking What Equitable Park Access Means

This study adds nuance to the conversation about green cities. It shows that success cannot be measured solely by how close people live to parks. Instead, cities must consider how much green space is available, where it is located, and who benefits from it.

As urban areas continue to grow and densify, these questions will become even more pressing. The concept of Urban Park Oases offers a useful tool for identifying gaps and guiding more equitable investments in green infrastructure.

More information and the full research paper can be found here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19394071251383709