NYC Has 12,000 Acres of Forests, Wetlands & Other Natural Areas. Many Lifelong New Yorkers Don’t Know They Exist. 23%

By Jeanmarie Evelly48%

8/6/2026, 12:36:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 767 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,128 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.2% and a BS Rank of 23% (23,541 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.00% of the article peer group.

A new report from Center for an Urban Future urges the city to do more to raise awareness about, and increase access to, its “wild” spaces—what researchers say could improve residents’ mental and physical health. 
The lagoon at Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx. 
(Daniel Avila/NYC Parks) 
When the Natural Areas Conservancy booked a videographer to film footage of hiking trails in Manhattan’s Inwood Hill Park, the new hire told the organization’s then-Deputy Director Elizabeth Jaeger that it would be an easy gig for him: he lived right nearby. 
“I said, ‘That’s great, you must love coming to this park,'” she told researchers at the Center for an Urban Future, who interviewed Jaeger and staff at other nature-focused city nonprofits to get a better sense of how New Yorkers use and relate to green spaces. 
But despite his proximity, the man said he didn’t frequent the Upper Manhattan park, which houses some 153 acres of natural areas, including one of the city’s last remaining old-growth forests. 
“He told me he had never been there,” Jaeger said, telling researchers that this wasn’t uncommon. 
“In almost every workshop we do, we hear the same thing.” 
In addition to its sprawling network of traditional parks, playgrounds and ball fields, New York City manages 12,000 acres of “wild” spaces—forested hiking trails in places like Inwood Hill Park and Staten Island’s Greenbelt, wetlands and salt marshes in Jamaica and Pelham Bay, and hundreds of miles of shorelines. 
“But millions of New Yorkers don’t know they exist, have never been, and aren’t benefiting from that time in nature,” according to Eli Dvorkin, editorial and policy director at the Center for an Urban Future. 
Putnam Trail in the Bronx. 
(Adi Talwar/City Limits) 
The group published a report Thursday that explores this disconnect, and urges the city to do more to raise awareness about—and increase access to—these areas, citing the mental health benefits of time spent in nature. 
It includes a number policy suggestions, like more school field trips to expose youth early to the great outdoors, and creating “Nature and Culture Hubs” at public library branches to get the word out about the city’s overlooked wilderness. 
“At a time when New Yorkers are more stressed and screen bound and isolated from one another…our research suggests that one of the most effective antidotes is hiding in plain sight—spending more time in these wild places that that we’re lucky to to have right here in New York City,” Dvorkin told City Limits. 
The problem, the report says, comes down to awareness and proximity. 
Few New Yorkers—just 4.5 percent of residents—took advantage of the city’s nature-based programming in 2024, researchers found. 
“We heard so many times, some variation of, ‘I didn’t even know that existed,'” Dvorkin said. 
And while some 84 percent of the city’s population lives within walking distance of a park, fewer than half of residents are within a 10-minute walk of a natural area, according to the report. 
It recommends the city pilot monthly “Nature Days”—designated weekends that offer a bevy of public outdoor programs, like guided hikes, bird watching or kayak tours—partnering with the MTA to provide shuttle buses and expanded transit service to get people there. 
“That would introduce thousands of people to places that, hopefully, they’ll return to for years to come,” Dvorkin said. 
But the disconnect runs deeper than transit accessibility, the report notes. 
It can be especially pronounced for residents in lower-income communities and communities of color, for whom “spending time in nature can feel like a largely inaccessible luxury,” due to work, caregiving and other responsibilities. 
Some Black and brown New Yorkers, in particular, feel unsafe or unwelcome in outdoor spaces, advocates told researchers. 
“For decades, [outdoor recreation] has been a predominantly white field,” Jasmine Guadalupe, founder of The Hood Hikers, which leads guided nature tours for New Yorkers of color, told CUF. 
“Inner-city people might say, ‘You are going hiking? 
That’s for white people.'" 
To tackle this, the report recommends the city beef up the role of its Urban Park Rangers in natural areas, “to spend more time building public confidence, guiding visitors, leading programs, and supporting safe use of wild places.” 
It also calls for more opportunities that expose city dwellers to the outdoors as children and young adults: requiring schools to provide every student with at least one “nature-based experience” per year through field trips and other initiatives, and connecting teens who take part in the city’s Summer Youth Employment Program with jobs maintaining forest trails or taking care of trees. 
Kayakers along the Bronx River. 
(Adi Talwar/City Limits) 
“Those attitudes form early,” Dvorkin said. 
“That ends up being a major deciding factor in terms of who grows up in New York City feeling comfortable in those places.” 
Of course, those kind of investments take resources, and New York City’s parks are known for getting a smaller slice of the budget pie compared to other major U.S. cities. 
Natural areas get an even smaller portion: just 2 percent of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s operating budget goes to these areas, despite that they account for roughly a third of the city’s parkland, the report found. 
“For years, the capital and expense dollars committed to the city’s natural areas have not kept up with maintenance needs or rising demand, even as these spaces face mounting pressures from climate change and increased usage,” the CUF report reads. 
It suggests the city explore more “public-private partnerships, philanthropic support, and state tourism and environmental funding streams” to help fill the gaps. 
Dvorkin said he’s been “encouraged” by the Mamdani administration’s embrace of outdoor recreation in its affordability agenda. 
This summer, as part of City Hall’s World Cup promotions, the city hosted overnight pickup soccer games and turned streets near dozens of city schools into student play areas. 
And while Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s first budget failed to allocate 1 percent of overall city spending to parks—something advocates have called for for years—the final deal did include “some important investments in the city’s natural areas; baselining some key staff roles, making some investments in in forestry,” Dvorkin said. 
“In recent years, we’ve been going arguably the wrong direction when it comes to investment in our park system and in natural areas as well,” he said. 
“I’m seeing some important signs right now that that the city is starting to turn that around.” 
You can read the full report here. 
To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org 
Want to republish this story? 
Find City Limits’ reprint policy here. 
The post NYC Has 12,000 Acres of Forests, Wetlands & Other Natural Areas. 
Many Lifelong New Yorkers Don’t Know They Exist. appeared first on City Limits. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.4%Jeanmarie Evelly: 3.0%City Limits: 2.9%Confirmation Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.9%City Limits: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.5%City Limits: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.8%City Limits: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.2%City Limits: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.4%City Limits: 4.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.7%City Limits: 0.7%Status Quo Bias7.0%This article: 4.3%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect4.3%This article: 4.7%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.9%City Limits: 2.7%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 8.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.5%City Limits: 1.4%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 9.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 6.1%City Limits: 5.9%Negativity Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.6%City Limits: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.0%City Limits: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.0%City Limits: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.6%City Limits: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 3.1%City Limits: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.5%City Limits: 1.5%False Dilemma1.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.9%City Limits: 3.0%Hasty Generalization0.5%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.9%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.4%City Limits: 4.5%Appeal to Emotion7.9%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.9%City Limits: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 1.7%City Limits: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.3%City Limits: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.1%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.3%City Limits: 2.8%Anecdotal7.1%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.6%City Limits: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.2%City Limits: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.1%City Limits: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.7%City Limits: 0.8%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 0.4%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.5%City Limits: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.4%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 4.2%City Limits: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 3.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 3.6%City Limits: 3.2%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 2.6%Jeanmarie Evelly: 2.0%City Limits: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.0%City Limits: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Jeanmarie Evelly: 0.4%City Limits: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

1128 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers37%attributed speech711writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words18% of attributed speech36% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Center for an Urban Future: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Center for an Urban Future: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Center for an Urban Future: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.