Jump to content

Course:GEOG350/2026/Spatial Inequality: Access to Recreational Spaces

From UBC Wiki

Introduction & Context

Map of Downtown Eastside

Access to recreational spaces plays an important role in the everyday life of urban citizens. Physical activity, social interaction, and community belonging are just a few examples of the important uses of recreational spaces in urban settlements. The VanPlay Strategic Plan acts as a framework for how the city should emphasize accessibility, inclusion, and quality for Vancouver’s parks are recreational facilities. Despite this, there are persistent inequalities found in how recreational spaces are distributed, experienced, and accessed in Vancouver. This is particularly noticeable in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), raising questions about who recreational urban planning is intended to benefit, and who is prioritized. The DTES exists as one of the most marginalized communities in Greater Vancouver, hence it is a good example to highlight the limitations of the current planning system and its approaches to recreational areas, and how this can be changed to be more inclusive and equitable. This issue connects to broader themes in urban studies around topics of spatial justice, uneven development, and the role of planning in managing or exacerbating inequalities. In Henri Lefebvre’s ‘Right to The City’, the importance of access to urban space and public participation in the planning system is noted as vital for healthy cities.[1] This problem in Vancouver is also linked to broader urban challenges of housing insecurity and exclusionary planning practices. In Vancouver, recreational planning has deep-rooted ties to wealth levels/class, race, and development.[2] This is why residents in Vancouver experience different neighbourhoods in different ways, with some having access to well funded recreational facilities, like in Kitsilano, whilst others have limited options, like in the DTES. Spatial inequality is shaped by interconnecting factors from historical inequalities, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and varied definitions of what counts as meaningful access, any one solution could go against other stakeholder beliefs. There exists trade-offs between equity, resources, and political priorities.

Stakeholder Landscape

The DTES neighbourhood exemplifies how spatial inequality and unequal access to the city are produced through histories of colonialism, capitalism, and urban planning. As one of Vancouver’s earliest settled neighbourhoods, it became increasingly stigmatized as “Skid Row” following economic decline.[3] Additionally, the media continues to construct DTES as a “problematic space” reinforcing existing power relations in society and further stigmatizing the DTES community.[3] This area has been regarded as “Canada’s poorest urban neighbourhoods” and part of this is due to the planning which often excludes existing residents within this neighbourhood.[4] Yet, the discourse of the DTES from the lived experiences of people living and working there are different. This Opinion Piece from the Vancouver Sun, highlights the strong community among residents and importance of including the voices of minority demographics into the conversation.

Map of Stakeholders Involved in The Unequal Access to Recreational Facilities in The Downtown Eastside, Vancouver


This map shows the stakeholders involved in spatial inequality in regards to access to recreational areas in the DTES; the larger circles have more overall influence in this issue, and the arrows show the direction of applied influence and power. Therefore, highlighting the power dynamics of this problem visually, allowing a broadened understanding of the problem. Despite the DTES being one of Vancouver’s oldest neighbourhoods, it has experienced economic decline leading to the demographics of the area we see today.[3] The DTES has Indigenous Peoples as significant stakeholders yet have little power. In 2016, 9.8% of the population identified as Indigenous [5], compared to the Metro Vancouver average of 3% [6]. This shows that Indigenous Peoples are disproportionally impacted by the lack of access to recreational facilities in the DTES. This disproportional negative impact is also found with people on lower incomes: 49.5% of DTES residents spend more than 30% of their income on housing- this is a common benchmark used to assess levels of income & disposable income with 30% considered as the ‘maximum’ that should be spent on housing [5]. To summarise a few key points from the stakeholder map: It shows how wealthy residents indirectly have power over low-income residents through their increased power over the municipal government and private developers. Ultimately this means that wealthy residents have more power and influence over the access to recreational areas than low-income residents of the Downtown Eastside. Non-profit organisations, as non-governmental bodies, have significant influence over different minority groups. This power is often overlooked due to the organisations fitting outside of the norms of capitalism. This relates to the heightened level of community seen in the DTES [7]. There is a two-way direction of applied influence and power between urban planners, Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, and the City of Vancouver Municipal Government relation shows the complex matter of regulation and the decision-making progress when allocating provisions for recreational facilities and areas.

Problem Framing

Wicked Statement

Accessing equitable recreational spaces within Vancouver is a wicked problem, as it goes beyond the distribution of parks and community centres to include social, cultural, and economic dimensions of access. However, there is no singular solution to this issue. While the framework from the VanPlay Strategic Plan identifies gaps in infrastructure, it often overlooks the lived experiences of exclusion that shape how different groups access and interact with these spaces. In particular, precariously housed populations are frequently excluded from planning processes, limiting their ability to influence decisions that directly impact their daily use of public space.[8] These challenges are further compounded by historical inequalities, diverse stakeholder needs, and competing definitions of access, making it difficult to develop solutions that are equitable, inclusive, and sustainable for all communities.

The issue of inequitable recreational spaces within Vancouver is a wicked problem by being a symptom of other problems compounding throughout the city. There are multiple factors involved, it is not just the geographical location but the histories of inequality which continue to reproduce disadvantages to certain demographics in the city.[9] This page will continue highlight the important characteristics of this wicked problem and the analysis will be guided by the questions below:

Questions to Guide This Analysis

  • How might one integrate community voices more meaningfully into long-term recreation planning processes?
  • How might one improve or expand the recommendations of the VanPlay Strategic Plan to better address inequities in access?

Lefebvre's "Right to the City" and Understanding Recreational Spaces

Henri Lefebvre theorized the idea of “right to the city” which explains that even though society progresses with cities growing as a hub of resources, jobs, technology, and innovation, they will decrease in accessibility for many people.[1] Furthermore, Lefebvre emphasizes the need for inclusivity and accessibility within urban spaces.[1] This theory is an important lens to use through the examination of spatial inequality in connection to recreational spaces within Vancouver.

Vancouver’s uneven distribution of trees, parks, infrastructure, and land use reflects historical patterns of investment shaped by class, race, and gender, resulting in persistent social and environmental inequalities.[2] This connects to Lefebvre’s “right to the city” because it underscores the need for all residents to equally participate and shape urban life, including access to recreational spaces. There are significant factors of income, physical location, accessibility, demographics, infrastructure and transportation. While recreational spaces are important for physical and mental health, their quality, location, and accessibility vary widely across Vancouver, which creates inequalities between communities.[10] Therefore, addressing these disparities requires rethinking urban planning to ensure equitable access to recreational spaces and to uphold every resident’s right to fully participate in and benefit from the city.

Vancouver Case Study

Map of Downtown Eastside Existing Public Facilities and Amenities

Background on the Downtown Eastside

Certain neighbourhoods in Vancouver have fewer parks, recreation facilities, and programs compared to others, creating geographic inequalities where some communities have limited opportunities for recreation and social activities. The examination of this Wicked Problem in Vancouver will be focused on how recreation inequity between neighbourhoods, through an analysis of how the VanPlay Master Plan considers the DTES.

Spatial inequality is closely tied to uneven access to recreational spaces, particularly for low-income and precariously housed residents in the DTES. Recreational space and programming that support active living are vital community resources. Participation in recreation activities is linked to improved mental and physical health, learning, relationships, community, and belonging.[11] The DTES neighbourhood has three community centres that offer recreation programming: the Carnegie and Evelyne Saller community centres operated by the City of Vancouver as well as the RayCam Co-operative Centre which is co-operated by the RayCam Co-operative Association and the Vancouver Parks board.[12]

The Downtown Eastside Social Impact Assessment highlights how redevelopment and rising land values reshape public space, often prioritizing new users over existing communities[13], and further overlooking current residents. While amenities may increase, precariously housed individuals are frequently excluded from planning processes, limiting their ability to influence how these spaces are designed, accessed, and governed, and reinforcing inequitable access to the city.[4][8][13]

Overview of the VanPlay Master Plan

A graphic displaying the guiding principles of the VanPlay Master Plan.

Between 2018 and 2019 the Vancouver Parks Board released four reports outlining their new master plan intended to direct the next 25 years of parks and recreation in Vancouver. This initiative was termed “VanPlay."[2] Report 1, Inventory and Analysis, provides an overview of the state of the Park Board’s current assets, facilities, and programing. Report 2, 10 Goals to Shape the Next 25 Years, outlines the key takeaways from Report 1 that guide the subsequent reports. Report 3, Strategic Bold Moves, details three planning tools to be utilized going forwards. Finally, Report 4, The Playbook: Implementation Plan, describes the policies and initiatives that the Park Board plans to implement or are currently underway.

In each report, the Park Board reiterates their guiding principles and the master plan’s raison d’etre with reference to the need for accessibility, quality, and inclusion as indicators of the equitability across its services. It is clear that effort has been made to consider the various needs of Vancouver’s diverse population and the historic marginalization many communities have faced (there is reference to queer inclusion and reconciliation initiatives, among others). However, across all reports and final policy recommendations, there is a lack of careful consideration for the lived experiences and needs of low-income and unhoused residents, in particular those living in and around the DTES.

A map of median household income across Vancouver based on the 2016 census.

VanPlay and the Downtown Eastside

As stated the DTES is home to a disproportionate number of low income residents but this fact is underrepresented in VanPlay’s data. The Master Plan grounds its analysis from data sourced in-part from the 2016 census. Report 1 utilizes a map to visualize median household income (p. 14).[11] However, since this map relies on household income data, it excludes the realities of unhoused residents from consideration, privileging the needs of sheltered, renting, and homeowning residents. Today Statistics Canada collects data on unhoused people not living in shelters, but the first survey was published in 2019, after the development of the VanPlay Master Plan.[14]

VanPlay engagement survey responses by neighbourhood.
VanPlay tour engagement from across Vancouver.

Based on these two engagement maps from a report on VanPlay community engagement in 2017, only 2% of responses came from residents of the Strathcona neighbourhood (in which the majority of the DTES is located). Additionally, engagement was only conducted at one event hosted near the DTES, reaching 100 people (tied for lowest with the other event in Strathcona). Furthermore, since there is no information on the socio-economic status of those engaged, it is unclear if any low-income or unhoused residents were engaged as part of VanPlay’s master plan. It is therefore unlikely that any additional engagement was conducted to make up for the previously mentioned lack of data on the experiences of unhoused DTES residents.

A graph of different facilities (eg. aquatics, multifunctional, preschool) organized by community centre and square footage.

Report 1 also visualizes a variety of metrics measuring the capacity of community centres across the city. A graph displays different community centre facilities organized by community centre and square footage. Ray-Cam (the only community centre operated by the Parks Board in the DTES) ranks 7th lowest in total square footage and only has core community and childcare spaces. As mentioned, the DTES also has two other community centres operated by the City of Vancouver (Carnegie and Evelyne Saller). However, these centres primarily offer important social and cultural programming for DTES residents and low-capacity recreation such as pool tables and pickleball (citation, citation). As such, these community centres are not sufficient to make up the gap in recreation amenities between the DTES and neighbourhoods such as Kitsilano and Riley Park. Both Kitsilano and Hillcrest community centres boast extensive aquatics and ice rink facilities and are ranked second and first respectively in terms of total square footage.

Despite a clear awareness of the disparities in community facilities and programming and a repeated commitment to equity in recreation services, almost none of the VanPlay reports describe concrete initiatives to mitigate or repair this inequity. Report 4 (which outlines the Park Board’s actionable plans) details many important initiatives, however only three directly gesture toward improving inequity between community centres: F.1.7 (p. 40), F.1.12 (p. 40), and R.2.8 (p. 35).

A map of Vancouver Park Board facilities across Vancouver.

F.1.7 has two issues. Firstly, Ray-Cam community centre is one of two Parks Board operated centres that does not have a Community Centre Association. Ray-Cam was ultimately included in the Community Centre Strategy, but mistakes like this point to a continued lack of consideration for recreation in the DTES. Secondly, while the strategy does outline steps to mitigate facility inequity between communities (p. 20), it would still not be sufficient to provide communities like the DTES with the same recreation amenities as Kitsilano or Riley Park. Additionally, the Recreation Functional Planning Consideration Guidelines referenced in F1.12 has yet to be developed.[15]

As for initiative R.2.8, the Access and Inclusion Strategy has also not yet been developed and as such the expansion of inclusive programming cannot be assessed.[15] This leaves the Leisure Access Program (LAP), a program that allows low-income Vancouver residents to register to be able to access recreation programs for free or at a reduced rate (Report 1, p. 138). The Park Board seems to view LAP as a robust answer to income-related inequity in accessing recreation. In Report 3, LAP participants are used to measure demand for low-barrier recreation in Vancouver (p. 30 - 31). However, LAP likely fails to represent the recreation needs of members of the DTES because Ray-Cam provides free access to its programs for all residents living in the DTES catchment area.[16]

The lack of concrete efforts to consider, engage, and serve the recreation needs of the DTES community and unhoused residents threaten to further entrench spatial inequality in Vancouver.  

Comparative Perspective

Report 1 of the VanPlay report outlines various challenges facing Vancouver’s recreation system including increasing population and density, developmental pressure and land use needs, rising cost of living and inequity, aging infrastructure, and budget constraints (p. 9-11). These issues reflect growing trends across Canada. This report indicates that, across Canada, rising property value and competing land use needs threaten urban recreation space, and that aging infrastructure, insufficient funding, as well as limited human resources constrain the capacity of public organizations to provide adequate recreation services (p. 27-28).

Many of these limitations and challenges can be traced back to the rise of neoliberal governance across Canada, Western nations, and the world. Under neoliberalism taxes and market regulations are weakened and governments retreat from service provision.[17] This contributes to the lack of capacity for governing bodies like the Vancouver Parks Board. Furthermore, underfunded and over responsibilitized, the urban governance of many cities has transformed from managerial to entrepreneurial.[18] Vancouver is no exception.[19] Another such city is Baltimore, USA. Similar to Vancouver, Baltimore has concerns around spatial inequality and recreation, in particular the undeserving of racialized communities.[20] Unlike Vancouver, Baltimore has made considerable efforts to engage with and understand the experiences of unhoused residents. Individuals with lived experiences with homelessness have taken up decision-making positions in multiple city initiatives.[21][22][23] Austin, USA, takes it further, having created a Homelessness Advisory Committee, an institution made up of people who have experienced homelessness designated to guide policy concerning affecting unhoused residents. These are the kinds of practices Vancouver could integrate into its engagement and governance in order to ensure that its most marginalized and vulnerable populations have a voice in recreation services and beyond.

Vancouver differs from Baltimore and Austin in a myriad of ways, but two are significant. Firstly, while Baltimore’s marginalized communities are predominantly black,[20] In Vancouver, Indigenous people are the ethnic group that is most overrepresented, making up 31% of the unhoused population despite only making up 3% of the total population.[24] This calls for an intersectional approach that considers both the lived experiences of unhoused residents as well as of Indigenous people, incorporating Indigenous wellness and decolonization. Secondly, Vancouver has been more successful in its entrepreneurial efforts, being ranked as a top sustainable city and winning its bids for Expo 86, the 2010 Olympics, and most recently the 2026 World Cup. While these events bring development and stimulate the economy, they have a history of displacement and deepening inequity–including spatial and recreational inequity.[19] [25] Vancouver will need robust and lived experience-informed initiatives if it wishes to mitigate or prevent these inequities.

Ideas for Urban Action

As established, there is no single solution to this problem of unequal access to recreational facilities in Vancouver’s DTES. However, when looking at different case studies there are some ideas that the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation could draw from. Firstly, regardless of the solution, public participation is vital to ensure that the needs of the public are actually met [26]. This can be done through focus groups, as this combines individual public opinions with group discussions for people to come together and decide what is important [26]. This study showed that for parks the public valued the vision (park design), as well as park safety the most. However, this public participation should not be a one-time event. The very nature of Wicked Problems includes the fact that different solutions can change over time, hence ongoing public engagement is necessary. The governmental stakeholders creating these public participation projects would also need to consider how best to engage low-income residents specifically, as that is more applicable to the DTES. Another thing to note is that ff the stakeholder group of high income ‘NIMBYs’ were involved in these public engagement projects, then the outcome could of the projects could not have as high of a positive impact on residents of the DTES. This is an important consideration, as there has been a gap identified in the number of people engaging in public planning consultation, with people on high-incomes often having a disproportionate amount of power [27]. A case study from New York, in Redhook, shows an example of what the local government did to tackle this problem of access to recreational facilities. This case study is particualry applicable as takes place in an area of New York that features a high proportion of residents living in public housing, as well as it being an area experiencing high numbers of individuals on low incomes [27]. Due to the low tax revenue collected in this area due to being an area of individuals on low incomes, Redhook partnered with local universities, public schools, and community organisations to assist in the provision of recreational facilities [27]. This relates to the non-governmental organisations as a stakeholder group in the DTES.

Conclusion & Reflection

Key Summary and Reflection

Inequitable access to recreational spaces in Vancouver, particularly in the DTES, reflects a larger wicked problem throughout the city. It has been shaped by uneven development through historical marginalization and exclusionary planning practices.[4] While the VanPlay Strategic Plan identifies accessibility and inclusion as key priorities, gaps continue to remain in addressing the lived realities of low-income and unhoused residents especially within the DTES community.[2] The application of the Design Thinking framework highlights the importance of centering diverse stakeholder experiences and reflecting back to recognize some of the limitations of proposed “one-size-fits-all” solutions in addressing spatial inequality to these spaces.

This analysis demonstrates that the Design Thinking framework provides a valuable lens for examining spatial inequality. Empathy in urban geography extends beyond observation to steers toward including meaningful engagement with marginalized communities in planning practices. Additionally, the define stage highlights how the framing of a problem influences which solutions are pursued and whose needs are prioritized. Furthermore, reinforcing the importance of critically examining underlying power dynamics within urban planning. Finally, the ideate, prototype, and test stages emphasize the need for flexible and adaptive approaches. Together, these stages illustrate that addressing inequitable access to recreational spaces requires a continuous and participatory process rather than a singular or static intervention.

Questions for Future Inquiry

The research and proposed solutions does not help with this analysis, instead it promotes future inquiry of these issues. Spatial inequality cannot be solved with a singular solution as it requires more complex factors. Therefore, future inquiry may explore some of these questions below:

  • What methods can be used to meaningfully engage underrepresented populations in long-term recreation planning and decision-making processes?
  • What are some considerations to be included in future City of Vancouver Strategic Plan’s, similar to VanPlay, regarding recreational spaces to better address spatial inequality and exclusion in recreational access?

References & Data Sources

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Lefebvre, Henri (1996). Kofman, Eleonore; Lebas, Elizabeth (eds.). Writings on Cities. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 "VanPlay: Vancouver's Parks and Recreation Services Master Plan". City of Vancouver. Retrieved 2026/4/12. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Liu, S., & Blomley, N. (2012). Making news and making space: Framing Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 57(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00453.x
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Tolfo, G., & Doucet, B. (2022). Livability for whom?: Planning for livability and the gentrification of memory in Vancouver. Cities, 123, 103564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103564
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 "Downtown Eastside Community Health Service Area Health Profile (Version 2.0)". 2016. Retrieved 2026-3-20. |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  6. ↑ "METRO VANCOUVER & DELTA COMMUNITY PROFILE". 2021. Retrieved 2024-3-5. |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  7. ↑ Burrows, Amanda (2025-7-22). "Opinion: The Downtown Eastside is not a failed experiment. It's a living community of resilience". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 2026-3-9. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Smith, H. A. (2003). Planning, policy and polarisation in Vancouver’s downtown eastside. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 94(4), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00276
  9. ↑ McCreary, T., & Milligan, R. (2018). The Limits of Liberal Recognition: Racial Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, and Environmental Governance in Vancouver and Atlanta. Antipode. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12465
  10. ↑ Fitzgibbons, J. (2020, November 10). Not All Green Space is Created Equal – or Equally Accessible to All |. TheCityFix. https://thecityfix.com/blog/not-all-green-space-is-created-equal-or-equally-accessible-to-all/
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 "Vancouver's Parks and Recreation: Inventory & Analysis" (PDF). July 2018. |first= missing |last= (help)
  12. ↑ "RayCam Co-operative Centre". City of Vancouver. Retrieved 4/12/2026. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 City of Vancouver. (2014). Downtown Eastside plan. https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/policy-plan-downtown-eastside.pdf
  14. ↑ "Canadian Housing Survey (CHS)". |first= missing |last= (help)
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 "How We Plan". City of Vancouver. Retrieved 2026/4/12. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  16. ↑ "Raycam Cooperative Centre Spring 2026 Program Guide" (PDF). 2026. Retrieved 2026/4/12. line feed character in |title= at position 26 (help); |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  17. ↑ Harvey, David (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
  18. ↑ Harvey, David. "From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism". Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography. 71: 3–17 – via JSTOR.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Vanwynsberghe, Rob; Surborg, Björn; Wyly, Elvin (11 February 2012). Object Identifier (DOI) "When the Games Come to Town: Neoliberalism, Mega-Events and Social Inclusion in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games" Check |url= value (help). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 37: 2074–2093.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Bustad, Jacob J.; Andrews, David L. (August 2020). "Remaking recreation: Neoliberal urbanism and public recreation in Baltimore". Cities. 103.
  21. ↑ "SNAPS In Focus: Integrating Persons with Lived Experiences in our Efforts to Prevent and End Homelessness". Hud Exchange. January 15, 2020.
  22. ↑ "As a Person With Lived Experience of Homelessness, Anthony Williams Makes Meaningful Contributions to the Continuum of Care". City of Baltimore. Retrieved 2026/4/12. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  23. ↑ "Lived experience is crucial in guiding Baltimore's overdose crisis response, new board members say". Mobtown Redux.
  24. ↑ Lin, Zoey (February 13, 2024). "It is All Connected". Vancouver Aboriginal Violence Prevention Program.
  25. ↑ Abbott, Theodore (April 22, 2024). [doi:10.26073/capu:6578 "Vancouver, Neoliberalism, and The Global Necropolis"] Check |url= value (help). ARCA.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Gearin, Elizabeth; Hurt, Carletta S. (2024-1-1). "Making Space: A New Way for Community Engagement in the Urban Planning Process". Sustainability. 16. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Beck, Helen; Berney, Rachel; Kirk, Brian; Yocom, Ken P (2024-7-1). "Building equity into public park and recreation service investment: A review of public agency approaches". Landscape and urban planning. 247. Check date values in: |date= (help)


This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.


Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2026/Spatial_Inequality:_Access_to_Recreational_Spaces&oldid=893951"