2026’s Cities With the Most Green Space

We often treat parks as ‘nice to have’ amenities. Based on your research, why should we view them as ‘must-have’ public health infrastructure?

Absolutely. There are many scientific studies that demonstrate the important health benefits of access to urban parks and other forms of green space. These benefits range from physical fitness and cardiovascular health, reduced blood pressure, lowered cortisol levels, and psychological well-being.

With voters approving over $16 billion in park funding measures in 2024, how should cities prioritize spending to maximize equitable access — especially in neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment?

Cities should analyze the spatial distribution of their parks and open spaces, as well as the distribution of their recreational programs and associated resources.

The Trust for Public Land uses “park scores” for their neighborhoods, and cities can compute their own park scores and use them as a basis for making park and open space investment decisions that redress historical park inequities in access.

But, it is important to think not just about park space as a generic space, but as a range of spaces — places that offer play spaces, team sports, etc., but also outdoor trails, streams, forests, etc. — because nature exposure is important to mental health.

How can green spaces help cities manage climate challenges and extreme weather?

Urban vegetation — forests, parks, and other types of green spaces — are carbon sinks and help with climate change. Such spaces are also vital in terms of managing extreme weather events because they are permeable surfaces and can both absorb runoff and direct it into nearby stormwater management infrastructure, as well as adjacent lakes, oceans, etc.

For someone experiencing stress, anxiety, or burnout, what’s the most effective way to use green space for recovery — is a quick walk enough, or does it require longer immersion? 

There is no optimal ‘dose’ of green space. But even short periods of time — e.g., 15 minutes in a quiet natural landscape, for example — reduces stress and improves wellbeing.

Not all green spaces are created equal. What makes the difference between a park that residents actively use versus one that sits empty—and how can cities improve underperforming spaces? 

A variety of types of green and/or park spaces are a good thing — ranging from active parks oriented to sports, to natural areas that promote relaxation, contemplation, and interaction with plants and animals.

Most often, parks sit empty when their facilities are in disrepair and/or outdated (e.g., no pickleball!), there are limited or no organized activities offered at the park, and they are unstaffed. Many parks need redesign, programs, and staff, and these are all expensive.

Many cities do not have the resources and need financial assistance from the county and state governments.

What green space in your city would you consider a “hidden gem,” and why? 

I am fortunate to live in Berkeley, California, which offers a wide range of green spaces, ranging from coastal parks (right on the bay) to large open space parks in the hills east of Berkeley. Some of the city’s parks do need renovation, and some neighborhoods need better and/or more park access. But there are many small, lovely places for contemplation, active sports, hiking, performances, and also socialization with others (humans and nonhumans alike).

One is John Hinkel Park, and another is Strawberry Creek Park.

We often treat parks as ‘nice to have’ amenities. Based on your research, why should we view them as ‘must-have’ public health infrastructure?

There is no doubt that parks are “need to have” amenities, not just “nice to have” accessories. I view them as essential services.

Over the past few decades, hundreds of studies have revealed a variety of physical, mental, and social health benefits that public parks provide. Our research has shown that residents of cities with more parks and higher quality parks report higher levels of physical activity, fewer cardiovascular health problems, higher levels of happiness and well-being, and lower levels of stress.

Parks provide numerous economic benefits, too. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the health benefits parks provide were even more conspicuous. People who weren’t able to go out and enjoy outdoor spaces were much more likely to suffer physically, psychologically, and socially than those who could go outside.

Our health care system tends to be reactive, focusing on treating problems with very expensive medical solutions after those problems arise. But if we utilize the upstream health promotion potential of parks, we could avoid many of these health problems in the first place, and it’s all free! That’s the power of parks!

With voters approving over $16 billion in park funding measures in 2024, how should cities prioritize spending to maximize equitable access — especially in neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment?

Given all of the health benefits described above, everyone deserves access to quality parks. It’s therefore encouraging to see voters regularly approving park funding measures at a high rate. In fact, parks and conservation initiatives are one of the rare issues these days that consistently receive bipartisan support — their universal appeal is undisputed.

While additional funding represents great news for parks and the public, there is a challenge. Parks and green spaces are rarely equitably distributed, and they are often concentrated in higher-income neighborhoods. Even in cases where parks are found in areas affected by historical disinvestment, they tend to be of lower quality (with fewer amenities) and are often used less.

When building and renovating parks, planners and managers should use tools like the Trust for Public Land’s ParkServe to identify key recreation gaps and how to address them.

How can green spaces help cities manage climate challenges and extreme weather?

Green spaces provide a variety of ecosystem services that impact human health directly (via recreation in parks) and indirectly (via regulation and maintenance services such as temperature control, air purification, and flood mitigation).

In the case of extreme heat, parks provide shade and much-needed relief in urban heat islands. In the case of extreme storms, well-constructed parks can serve as green infrastructure that helps absorb runoff and minimize the impacts of stormwater damage.

If we want our cities to be more resilient in the face of global environmental change, investing in parks and green spaces is a great place to start.

For someone experiencing stress, anxiety, or burnout, what’s the most effective way to use green space for recovery — is a quick walk enough, or does it require longer immersion?

There is a lot of research currently being done to identify the optimal time in nature (or nature dosage) required to generate tangible health benefits. While a specific number has not yet been identified, most researchers agree on one thing: any time outdoors in nature is better than nothing.

An immersive experience in a remote wilderness area is undoubtedly transformative, but not many people have access to that on a regular basis. Fortunately, studies show that even 10-minutes of sitting in nature or walking along a tree-lined sidewalk can make a big difference to someone experiencing mental health challenges.

Evidence also suggests that nature views through a window or vicarious experience of nature through screens can help with stress reduction and attention restoration. In short, if you are feeling stressed, anxious, depressed, or just generally burned out and need help, go outside and let nature work its magic. In just a few minutes, you’ll be glad you did.

Not all green spaces are created equal. What makes the difference between a park that residents actively use versus one that sits empty—and how can cities improve underperforming spaces?

Not all parks are created equally. While any park or green space offers conservation benefits via ecosystem services and some types of recreational opportunities, the parks that are most frequently used are those that are “activated” by desirable amenities, programs, events, and other features that draw people in.

The most visited parks are those that appeal to people in different ways that depend on local context. For example, in areas where many families live, playgrounds and sports fields or courts are key. In places where many young adults reside, adventure recreation offerings such as mountain biking or rock climbing might be attractive.

Water features are always popular, and these “blue spaces” promote unique health benefits, too. Ultimately, the most effective parks are those that are designed and managed with local communities in mind – that’s the only way to ensure a park’s potential will be maximized.

What green space in your city would you consider a “hidden gem,” and why?

I live in Raleigh, North Carolina, a city known for its amazing parks and greenways. Two of my favorite spots are Umstead State Park and Lake Johnson Park, both places where you can escape urban life and enjoy a secluded walk on a forest trail. When I’m out on those trails, I forget that I’m in a city — that’s the best part! I also enjoy runs and bike rides on the Neuse River Trail, part of a fantastic greenway network that connects many parts of the Triangle Area — no car required.

We often treat parks as ‘nice to have’ amenities. Based on your research, why should we view them as ‘must-have’ public health infrastructure?

The human health benefits of urban parks and various green spaces are numerous, including increased cardiovascular health, improved mental health, and a sense of community and/or belonging.

These benefits are extremely valuable in today’s world and provide an important public space for people to interact with their community for free. These urban green spaces can also support rich biodiversity, which I would argue is valuable to the human experience.

With voters approving over $16 billion in park funding measures in 2024, how should cities prioritize spending to maximize equitable access — especially in neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment?

Tree plantings certainly go a long way in terms of ecosystem services. The shade (and therefore heat reduction) they provide is crucial in many neighborhoods that are historically disinvested. They are also vital for pollution amelioration, flood control, and aesthetics.

Beyond tree plantings, though, there is also a need for green spaces where residents can recreate and experience nature. That can come in the form of community gardens, grassland plantings, streams, and more, which can support a range of plant and animal species.

Birdsong has been shown to increase people’s nature connectedness and mental health, so if we can provide avenues for residents in highly urbanized areas to experience nature, then we are creating extremely valuable experiences.

How can green spaces help cities manage climate challenges and extreme weather?

Green spaces with dense vegetation and healthy soils are able to soak up a significant amount of rainfall, which can mitigate some flooding impacts during major storms. The same goes for reducing temperatures during heat waves.

For someone experiencing stress, anxiety, or burnout, what’s the most effective way to use green space for recovery — is a quick walk enough, or does it require longer immersion?

Absolutely, quick walks can provide a bit of benefit. However, if we can slow down and feel ourselves in the spaces, then that will always help. Speed walking through a park with headphones on will not provide the same benefit as taking your time and listening to the birds and the bees.

My two cents is to observe the plants and animals when you’re in green spaces. Watching what the plants and animals are doing and how they change throughout the seasons can be a deeply interesting and grounding experience for me.

Of course, getting involved and volunteering is another great way to get the most out of your local green spaces. It’s difficult to put into words the profound joy that comes from seeing a bee pollinating a flower that you planted, or a bird nesting in a tree that you planted.

Not all green spaces are created equal. What makes the difference between a park that residents actively use versus one that sits empty—and how can cities improve underperforming spaces?

Both functionality and design are important in green space development.

We require elements such as trees for shade, benches to rest, and vegetation to buffer against the speed of our urban environment. But not all vegetation is the same, and the structure of it can play an important role in how comfortable we feel in these spaces.

I think it’s valuable to think about how plant species interact with each other, and what our field-of-vision becomes as park visitors. Some research has shown that humans have preferences for a closed tree canopy, but an open understory area (the vegetation closer to our height), which allows longer lines of sight.

However, not all parks are the same, as you say, and each can play different roles, and we should value heterogeneity in our urban parks.

What green space in your city would you consider a “hidden gem,” and why?

Inwood Hill Park in Harlem, New York City, is a truly incredible remnant (old-growth) forest right in the heart of the United States’ largest city. As the name suggests, there are some hills, and when you crest over the first hill, you enter a forested valley where all of the noise of the city falls away. You find yourself in this beautiful, immersive forest that immediately feels restorative.

However, not many people know about this space, or at least not as well as some of NYC’s more frequently visited parks, such as the (also lovely) Central Park and Prospect Park. I can’t recommend it enough, whether you live in NYC or are just visiting.

We often treat parks as “nice to have” amenities. Based on your research, why should we view them as “must-have” public health infrastructure?

Parks operate like preventative healthcare: they make daily or frequent physical activity easier, reduce heat exposure through shade and cooling, improve air quality, buffer noise, and provide low-cost mental health support (stress reduction, mood restoration, and social connection).

Because these benefits accrue broadly — especially for people with limited access to private yards, gyms, or healthcare — parks should be planned and funded as essential, population-level health infrastructure, not optional beautification.

Parks also help prevent and mitigate weather and climate change-related disasters, including extreme heat and flooding. These types of conditions and disasters are also public health risks.

With voters approving over $16 billion in park funding measures in 2024, how should cities prioritize spending to maximize equitable access—especially in neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment?

Cities should prioritize “closing the green gap” first: Invest in neighborhoods with the highest heat burden, lowest tree canopy, and poorest park access — often the same places shaped by historic redlining and long-term disinvestment — then fund safe, walkable connections (sidewalks, crossings, lighting, and ADA-compliant accessibility) so parks are truly reachable.

Just as importantly, allocate durable operations dollars for maintenance, staffing, and programming (not just new capital projects), and pair park upgrades with anti-displacement strategies so improvements don’t price out the residents they should serve (gentrification-induced displacement).

How can green spaces help cities manage climate challenges and extreme weather?

Green spaces and infrastructure are core climate adaptation and mitigation tools: trees and vegetation cool neighborhoods (reducing heat illness), absorb and slow stormwater (reducing flooding), clean run-off water, stabilize soils, and create flexible “sponge” landscapes that perform during intense rainfall.

Well-designed parks can double as resilience infrastructure — e.g., floodable fields, rain gardens, wetlands, and shaded corridors — often delivering multiple benefits at lower cost than single-purpose gray infrastructure.

For someone experiencing stress, anxiety, or burnout, what’s the most effective way to use green space for recovery: a quick walk or a longer immersion?

As with physical exercise, a quick walk in a green space can be enough to help reduce feelings of stress, anxiety, or burnout — especially if it’s intentional: slowing the pace, putting the phone away, and engaging the senses (sounds, textures, light, colors, and temperature).

Longer or repeated visits compound benefits, but the “best” dose is the one that’s realistic and consistent. Even brief, regular nature breaks can support mood regulation, attention recovery, and better sleep routines.

Not all green spaces are created equal. What makes the difference between a park that residents actively use versus one that sits empty—and how can cities improve underperforming spaces?

Park use hinges on comfort, safety, relevance, and belonging: shade, seating, restrooms, cleanliness, good lighting, clear sightlines, and amenities people actually want (play, courts, trails, quiet areas) plus programming that reflects local culture and schedules.

Underperforming parks improve fastest when residents co-design solutions, and cities add “basics” (shade trees, maintenance, lighting), create active edges and entrances, and support stewardship through community partners and recurring events.

What green space in your city would you consider a “hidden gem,” and why?

Near my area, the Lake Artemesia Natural Area at Lakeland in College Park, Maryland, is a hidden gem.

It feels secluded, tranquil, and restorative despite being close to dense development, offers several accesses and easy walking loops for exercise or reflection, supports birds and biodiversity, has spaces for events (lawn, landscaped amphitheater), memorializes local history, and offers programming.

It provides a low-barrier “everyday nature” experience accessible without a major trip.

We often treat parks as ‘nice to have’ amenities. Based on your research, why should we view them as ‘must-have’ public health infrastructure?

Both proximity to parks and park size contribute to active travel, which improves both physical and mental health.

With voters approving over $16 billion in park funding measures in 2024, how should cities prioritize spending to maximize equitable access — especially in neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment?

Park proximity has a larger impact on active travel than park size. Therefore, it is important to have small parks scattered around residential neighborhoods.

Not all green spaces are created equal. What makes the difference between a park that residents actively use versus one that sits empty—and how can cities improve underperforming spaces?

For small community parks, footpath design, entrance location, safety, convenience for social activities, and nature are critical to user satisfaction with parks.

References

Tao, Tao, Xinyi Wu, Jason Cao, Yingling Fan, Kirti Das, and Anu Ramaswami. 2023. “Exploring the Nonlinear Relationship between the Built Environment and Active Travel in the Twin Cities.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 43 (3):637-652.

Tang, Qi, Jason Cao, Chun Yin, and Jiawei Cheng. 2024. “Examining the nonlinear relationships between park attributes and satisfaction with pocket parks in Chengdu.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 101:128548.

We often treat parks as ‘nice to have’ amenities. Based on your research, why should we view them as ‘must-have’ public health infrastructure?

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, parks were not merely nice-to-have amenities. They became an essential public health infrastructure for residents to maintain social distancing and engage in passive and active leisure.

Beyond the environmental and economic benefits of parks in mitigating climate change impacts and improving walkability to nearby businesses, parks improve social and public health equity by increasing opportunities to engage in leisure, recreation, and sociability with diverse residents.

With voters approving over $16 billion in park funding measures in 2024, how should cities prioritize spending to maximize equitable access — especially in neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment?

To increase equitable access to neighborhoods affected by historical disinvestment in park maintenance and provision, cities should first map those who do not have access to a park, which can be measured by a 10-15 minute walk radius.

Neighborhoods that were historically redlined through racially restrictive zoning experience higher rates of exposure to pollution, lower intergenerational wealth, and less social equity. Residents in these neighborhoods should be prioritized in enhancing their ability to access high-quality parks and feel included in programming and design.

How can green spaces help cities manage climate challenges and extreme weather?

Annual average temperatures continue to rise due to climate change and the proliferation of heat-absorbing materials — like asphalt and concrete — known as the urban heat island effect. Green space and shade can reduce heat-related stress and illness for residents.

A study in Phoenix, Arizona, found that adding 1% of new green space across the city, including parks, shade, and tree coverage, reduced daily and nightly surface temperatures by 34 to 36 degrees.

For someone experiencing stress, anxiety, or burnout, what’s the most effective way to use green space for recovery — is a quick walk enough, or does it require longer immersion?

There are various ways to use green space to recover from stress, anxiety, or burnout, such as with walks, runs, leisure, and complete immersion. The CDC recommends 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity five days a week, like walking, to reduce incidences of cardiovascular disease mortality.

Studies on nature-based recreation and immersion, including hanging out in parks, have found that people who spend sustained periods of time in green spaces expand their sense of perspective and connectedness to the natural world, improve their mental well-being by being less stressed, anxious, and depressed, and better experience the restorative and holistic benefits of passive leisure and active recreation.

Not all green spaces are created equal. What makes the difference between a park that residents actively use versus one that sits empty—and how can cities improve underperforming spaces?

Parks that residents actively use provide diverse recreational opportunities, adequate lighting and public restrooms, shaded seating, and event programming.

Cities can improve underperforming spaces through routine maintenance from their capital parks budgets. A few strategies to improve the provision of accessible park space include acquiring vacant land, engaging in private-public partnerships, and reforming bureaucratic policies that delay park funding, maintenance, and remediation.

What green space in your city would you consider a “hidden gem,” and why?

Although I would not consider this park a “hidden gem,” Echo Park is one of the best multi-use green spaces in Los Angeles.

There are multiple recreational facilities, including a skatepark, tennis courts, a baseball field, an indoor basketball court and pool, two playgrounds, and a one-mile walking and running trail around a lake. Parks staff hosts free classes to teach any interested residents how to skateboard and play other sports. In terms of public amenities, there is adequate shade to protect from the sun, grassy hills for picnics, picnic benches and barbecues, and public restrooms.

One of the key tourist attractions is the swan boats that you can rent to paddle around in the lake. Culturally, Echo Park hosts annual events like the Lotus Festival. Socially and economically, you can purchase local foods and wares from vendors. All of these amenities are within a 15-minute walk of one another and accessible to Sunset Boulevard, which has restaurants, thrift stores, bars, bookstores, and concert venues, among other land uses.

References

Brymer, E., Crabtree, J., & King, R. (2021). Exploring perceptions of how nature recreation benefits mental wellbeing: A qualitative enquiry. Annals of Leisure Research, 24(3), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2020.1778494

Lackey, N. Q., Tysor, D. A., McNay, G. D., Joyner, L., Baker, K. H., & Hodge, C. (2021). Mental health benefits of nature-based recreation: A systematic review. Annals of Leisure Research, 24(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2019.1655459

Zhang, Y., Murray, A. T., & Turner, B. L. (2017). Optimizing green space locations to reduce daytime and nighttime urban heat island effects in Phoenix, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.009