Final Results

*Please refer to this link or QR code to our framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i–37WELUP_0rWph-YqBT04fmikGaq7oi6hkD8gda44/edit?usp=sharing

Our Takeaways

Introduction to The Framework

The framework developed is specifically tailored for use by experts in the landscape architecture field. This framework provides a comprehensive approach to evaluating the performance and overall success of parks, based on a robust set of metrics (See Appendix Y).

The framework is built on carefully selected metrics designed to measure the “success” of parks across various dimensions. These metrics are organized into major categories, each assessed on a scale of 1 to 5. The results are visually represented through a bar scale, where color-coded sections—green, yellow, and red—clearly indicate the park’s performance. This visual representation not only offers a clear assessment of current conditions but also highlights areas where improvements are needed. A score of 1 corresponded to red, a score of 2 corresponded to orange, a score of 3 was represented by yellow, a score of 4 corresponded to lime green, and finally, a perfect score of 5 was represented by dark green. The grading scale reflected how “successful” the park was based on all of the metrics included in the framework. A score of 1 indicated that the park needed severe improvement in this metric, a score of 3 indicated that the park aspect was satisfactory, and a score of 5 indicated that the park displayed exemplary behavior and thus needed little improvement in this metric. Scores of 2 and 4 fell between these three indications. Each category had a total value based on the number of metrics. For example, if the health section had 4 metrics each worth 5 possible points, the total possible score for the health section of the framework was 20 points when it came time to grade these sites in the future.

Our team developed this framework through an extensive review of literature in the landscape architecture field, drawing upon academic sources and established frameworks such as those from the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) and the Gehl Institute. In addition to academic research, we conducted in-depth interviews with leading professionals in the field to ensure that our framework is both rigorous and reflective of practical experience.

The following sections outline the design and structure of the framework, as well as recommendations for implementing this framework into future projects, offering detailed insights into its practical applications in the field of landscape architecture. Refer to Appendix (Y) to see the completed framework.

Human Enrichment and Sustainability and Resilience 

Human Enrichment vs Sustainability and Resilience:

The metrics in our framework are divided into two primary categories: Human Enrichment and Sustainability and Resilience. This separation was designed to differentiate between metrics that directly impact user experience and those that evaluate site performance independently of user interaction. The Human Enrichment category focuses on factors that enhance the experience and well-being of park users, while the Sustainability and Resilience category assesses the park’s environmental performance, durability, and long-term viability. After reviewing the full scope of metrics with our sponsor, Gretchen Rabinkin, we confirmed that these broad categories effectively encompass all the elements necessary for a comprehensive evaluation.

Metrics for Assessing Human Enrichment:

We identified twelve metrics relating to human enrichment for inclusion in the framework, divided into three categories that address the core functions and objectives of successful park design in terms of visitor use:

• Health, including the physical, mental, and social health of visitors
• Safety, including metrics that ensures both the community’s sense of security and the functional usability of the park 
• Use of Space, including the elements that enable visitors to engage with the park effectively, ensuring that the design and layout of the space support a positive and meaningful user experience. 

Health

 

Mental Health Assessment  

Mental health was consistently identified as a critical factor by multiple sources, including the literature review, our sponsor Gretchen Rabinkin, and interviews with field experts. To assess the mental health benefits of green spaces, it was recommended that surveys be used, as they provide direct insight into the experiences of park users. By collecting frequency data from these surveys, we can gather valuable quantitative evidence to evaluate the mental health impacts of park spaces.

 

Physical Health Benefits

Physical health emerged as another significant factor in the literature review, interviews, and as highlighted by our sponsor. Parks, such as Martin’s Park, were designed to foster active lifestyles and enhance community well-being. To assess this, we implemented protocols from the Gehl Institute, evaluating park features that support physical activity, like walkways, play areas, and open lawns. These features offer a reliable framework for assessing the physical health benefits associated with park use.

 

Social Health through Programming

Social health was also emphasized in the literature and interviews, including those with the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway Conservancy. We found that social programming, such as community events and educational initiatives, plays a key role in fostering community engagement. By focusing on how parks encourage social interactions, we can better understand their impact on community cohesion and overall social health.

 

Safety

 

Safety was identified as a priority, by multiple sources, including our project sponsor, and was consistently emphasized in interviews with professionals in the field. Measurement protocols for this metric includes measuring the number of surveillance cameras (as referenced in the interview with Chris Donahue regarding Martin’s Park), number of incident reports (also from Martin’s Park), and assessing the square footage of visible areas (as highlighted in the Post Office Park interview with Robert Uhlig and Richard Houghton). These methods provide objective, quantifiable data to assess the safety of parks.

 

Sanitation

The Sanitation metric was selected for inclusion in our framework because of its prominence in the literature review and multiple expert interviews in ensuring the usability and appeal of public spaces. To determine this metric, we added a method indicated by Jodie Kurilla, through which not just the cleanliness of the park itself is evaluated, but the potential for nearby public restrooms is taken into account. It guarantees a complete evaluation of sanitation and then such an evaluation is able to influence the park’s success. 

 

Cleanliness 

The Cleanliness metric was introduced to our framework as it has been highlighted, in literature and further emphasized during walkthrough interviews, such as at Martin’s Park with Chris Donahue and Post Office Park with Robert Uhlig and Richard Houghton. Cleanliness keeps parks pleasant and useful for users. To assess this metric, we recommend monitoring litter present and number of trash cans available on the site. This measure reflects standards established by the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Landscape Performance Series (LAF LPS)

 

Use of Space

 

1. Interactiveness  

   Interactiveness was included due to its prominence in the literature and interviews. Surveys can measure how visitors engage with park features, offering qualitative insights into the social dynamics within the park. Understanding how people interact with the space helps in evaluating its overall success in fostering user engagement.

 

2. Educational Opportunities

   Educational opportunities within park spaces enhance user experience by promoting awareness of the environment and history. Based on interviews with experts like Chris Donahue, we recommend measuring the number of informational signs and educational elements present in parks, providing an easily measurable indicator of educational value.

 

3. Privately Owned Public Spaces

   This metric, emphasized in interviews, evaluates how private spaces serve the public. Tools such as Boston’s checklist for privately owned public spaces can be used to assess how well these spaces meet community needs.

 

4. Realizing Design Goals  

   The Reality metric determines whether initial design goals were effectively translated into the final project. During site visits, it became clear that evaluating this metric can help ensure that the original vision for the park is achieved.

 

5. Seating

   Seating is essential for park usability. By counting accessible seating and assessing its distribution, we can measure the comfort and participation of visitors in the space. This metric was recommended by both our sponsor and multiple interviewees.

 

6. Inclusion and Accessibility

   Inclusion and accessibility were key components identified through literature and interviews, especially at sites like Martin’s Park. Following ADA and ABA regulations ensures that parks are accessible, but the integration of accessibility into the overall design promotes inclusion, creating spaces that are welcoming to all users.

Metrics for Assessing Sustainability and Resilience:

We identified nine metrics relating to sustainability and resilience in the framework, divided into two categories that address the core functions and objectives of successful park design in terms of function:

• Longevity and Maintenance provide a long-term perspective as pertains to park infrastructure sustainability and preservation, to guarantee that parks function correctly and continue to achieve their original design intent after long periods.
• Environment and Biodiversity assesses the environmental performance of the park, focusing on how it impacts local ecosystems and biodiversity and promotes various sustainable practices. 

 

Longevity and Maintenance  

 

1. Sustainability and Resilience

   This metric ensures that parks are designed and maintained to last. Interviews highlighted the importance of material durability and maintenance practices. By evaluating the performance of materials and their resilience to environmental factors, we can assess whether the park continues to meet its design goals over time.

 

2. Continued Function and Seasonality

   Parks must function year-round to fully serve their communities. By monitoring plant life and maintenance across different seasons, we can evaluate a park’s ability to thrive in all climates, ensuring its long-term viability.

 

3. Material Selection

   The choice of materials impacts both the longevity and usability of parks. By evaluating how materials perform under regular use and exposure to the elements, we can assess their durability and suitability for park construction.

 

4. Stormwater Management

   This metric focuses on how parks handle stormwater, a key environmental challenge in urban areas. By measuring flow rates and filtration systems, we can determine how effectively parks contribute to managing stormwater and reducing flood risks.

 

Environment and Biodiversity 

 

1.Continued Function

The Continued Function metric is essential for assessing how well a park fulfills its original purpose, particularly in urban areas like Boston, where stormwater management poses significant challenges. Insights from interviews and literature reviews highlight the importance of evaluating a park’s ability to manage stormwater effectively. The Stormwater Management measurement method, as suggested by the GEHL Institute and various experts, involves assessing flow rates, gallons of water filtered, and the quality of filtration systems, with specific references from Chris Donahue, Rex Tzen, and Kate England.

 

2.Air Quality

The Air Pollution metric recognizes the critical role of green spaces in improving air quality by absorbing pollutants, which helps reduce the risk of respiratory diseases among residents. Research, including a study by Li et al. (2023), supports this claim, and during a site visit, Chris Donahue noted that the abundance of plants in parks provides a natural filter for airborne contaminants. To measure this metric, the number of trees and other greenery is counted, along with calculations of the carbon absorption capacity of the vegetation, following guidelines from the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Landscape Performance Series.

 

3.Heat Island Effect  

The Heat Island/Climate Change metric addresses the Urban Heat Island effect, which is particularly relevant for cities like Boston. This metric emerged from literature reviews and interviews, where combating heat islands was identified as a critical design consideration. It aligns with the LAF framework, which categorizes “Temperature and Urban Heat Island” as a vital evaluation metric. Measurement methods include calculating the square footage of canopy coverage, taking ambient temperature readings before and after park completion, and using heat guns to compare temperatures in the park to surrounding urban areas.

 

8.Native and Adapted Species

The Native and Adapted Species metric emphasizes the need for parks to prioritize native and adapted plant species, as invasive species can disrupt local ecosystems. Chris Donahue highlighted that at least 50% of plant species should be native, with approximately 95% being adapted species and none being invasive, in line with guidelines from the National Wildlife Federation.

 

9.Biodiversity

Finally, the Biodiversity metric reflects the overall health of the park’s ecosystem, with the LAF framework listing “Habitat and Biodiversity” as a key performance benefit. Biodiversity is frequently cited as essential in interviews, with its role in enhancing resilience against climate change, disease, and other disturbances underscored in the literature. To measure this, the number of different species present in the park is counted, providing a quantifiable assessment of ecological diversity, as noted by Chris Donahue during site evaluations.

 

Design of Framework Grading System

Our findings guided the content and structure of the grading system within the framework. Insights from the literature review, expert interviews, and on-site visits of the case study parks informed the creation of a grading system for evaluating parks in the Boston Metropolitan area. The following sections outline the rationale behind this system’s design.

The Individual Grading System

A 5-point scale is sufficient for assessing park performance on individual metrics, as it provides clearer distinctions between scores. This approach was supported by feedback from experts and confirmed during on-site evaluations, where a larger scale, such as 1-10, proved ambiguous. Additionally, incorporating a color-coded bar scale (1= red, 2= yellow, 3= orange, 4= lime green, 5= dark green) enhances visual clarity, allowing users to easily interpret park performance beyond raw numbers.

 

Total Score Feature:

During the creation of the framework, our team discovered that comparing different parks’ scores by each individual metric is time consuming and inefficient. We determined that rather than comparing the performance of different parks this way, summing up the points for all metrics to create a total score for the park will give a clearer and more holistic comparison between how different parks are performing on an overall basis. Based on this finding, our framework was adjusted to include a total score for any given park at the end of the assessment.  Scores reflect how many total points the site received across all metrics out of total possible points across all metrics.

N/A Option:

During our on-site visits, we observed that parks vary greatly in capabilities and features based on size and intention behind the site. For example, we observed that Martin’s Park (about an acre long) contains various places to run, jump, and play. However, North Meadow Greenway (5,000 sq. feet) is intended to be more of a place for aesthetics and relaxing and provides little to no room for intense physical activity. Additionally, during meetings with Gretchen and multiple interviews, it was emphasized that parks will perform differently based on their goal/purpose (to educate, to promote physical activity, to improve biodiversity, etc.). As a result of this observation, we added a “N/A” feature to the grading scale for each metric. This will allow users to grade parks based only on metrics that apply to that specific park, giving it a more fair and valid score that is personal to that park’s specific intentions and capabilities.

In consequence of the added “N/A” option to our grading scale, this poses an issue for how to make scores between different parks relative and therefore comparable based on the metrics they were graded on. Based on this, users of the framework will need to subtract the 5 possible points for each individual metric that was given a score of “N/A” from the denominator of the total score during grading. This way, parks with varying purposes and capabilities can still be compared for performance on a relative scale.