# Adapting a systematic conservation planning tool for supporting accessible and diverse urban greenspace recreation

## TL;DR

This paper shows how a conservation planning tool can help cities plan better urban parks by considering accessibility and diversity of recreational opportunities.

## Contribution

The study adapts systematic conservation planning for urban greenspace recreation, emphasizing accessibility and mobility.

## Key findings

- Finer-scale accessibility measures selected more urban park amenities and spatially aggregated portfolios.
- Irreplaceability patterns varied based on how accessibility was quantified.
- More neighborhoods were included in park portfolios as mobility distance increased, but the growth was non-linear.

## Abstract

Urban greenspaces are increasingly recognized for their multifunctionality—the capacity to provide diverse ecological and social benefits. Yet, planning strategies often focus on greenspace availability and accessibility, overlooking the functional and structural diversity within and among urban greenspaces. Traditional hotspot-based approaches typically prioritize areas with high richness, while overlooking rare and unique features that, despite their low abundance, may be critical to overall multifunctionality.

With a focus on park amenities, this study explored the unique capabilities of Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) for evaluating the diversity and complementarity of recreational opportunities in a region-wide urban park system. We further integrated mobility considerations to offer a more nuanced approach to greenspace monitoring. We asked: How do different measures of accessibility and mobility shape selection of park portfolios?

As a proof-of-concept, we adapted a SCP approach, often used in biodiversity conservation, to identify greenspace portfolios in the City of Surrey, BC, Canada, a region with detailed mapping of diverse park amenities. Two contrasting scales of accessibility (neighborhood blocks vs. pixel-based) were used as constraints, and then evaluated under varying mobility (i.e. travel distance) assumptions.

We found finer scale (i.e. pixel-based) accessibility measures captured portfolios with a greater proportion of urban park amenities (80–100%) compared to block-level measures (1–67%), and also selected more spatially aggregated portfolios across the city. Irreplaceability patterns—indicating the parks most critical for diverse recreational amenities—varied depending on how accessibility was quantified. Lastly, more neighbourhoods were included in park portfolios as mobility (travel) distance increased, but this growth was non-linear.

Our work demonstrates SCP’s potential as a valuable tool for planning and evaluating urban greenspace recreational opportunities. It offers a proof-of-concept for applying spatial prioritization in urban contexts, and can be feasibly expanded to include many additional aspects of park multi-functionality. Use of finer-scale measures of accessibility (as a cost constraint), and different mobility (i.e. travel distance) assumptions, further enhanced the selection of park portfolios that can provide diverse recreational opportunities.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-026-02311-4.