Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update (2016) parks_and_recreation_system_master_plan_update_oct | Page 276

7 . sPending on Parks and Recreation by City , Adjusted for price of Living ( cont .)
City
Price of Living Score
80 100 120 140
Total Spending per Resident
Adjusted Spending Reflecting Price of Living
Fort Worth
$ 89
$ 89
Phoenix
$ 84
$ 84
Corpus Christi
$ 75
$ 83
Albuquerque
$ 73
$ 81
Plano
$ 90
$ 81
Durham
$ 75
$ 79
Fort Wayne
$ 70
$ 77
Norfolk
$ 75
$ 77
Los Angeles *
$ 82
$ 77
Oklahoma City *
$ 69
$ 74
Greensboro
$ 65
$ 74
Omaha
$ 71
$ 73
Riverside
$ 75
$ 70
Philadelphia
$ 66
$ 68
Mesa
$ 68
$ 68
Colorado Springs
$ 66
$ 65
Tulsa
$ 59
$ 65
Pittsburgh
$ 54
$ 62
Buffalo
$ 29
$ 62
Anaheim *
$ 65
$ 60
Memphis
$ 52
$ 58
Anchorage
$ 70
$ 57
Baltimore
$ 57
$ 55
Lubbock
$ 47
$ 54
Wichita
$ 50
$ 54
Baton Rouge
$ 49
$ 54
Gilbert
$ 58
$ 53
Dallas
$ 50
$ 52
Toledo
$ 44
$ 51
Santa Ana
$ 51
$ 49
Honolulu *
$ 54
$ 48
Chesapeake
$ 52
$ 47
Winston-Salem
$ 42
$ 47
El Paso *
$ 38
$ 47
Reno
$ 44
$ 46
Charlotte / Mecklenburg
$ 40
$ 40
Houston *
$ 37
$ 39
Louisville / Jefferson
$ 35
$ 37
Chula Vista
$ 43
$ 36
Glendale
$ 36
$ 36
Jacksonville *
$ 27
$ 27
Fremont *
$ 35
$ 26
Fresno
$ 23
$ 26
Indianapolis *
$ 24
$ 25
Newark
$ 25
$ 24
Jersey City
$ 22
$ 20
Detroit
$ 17
$ 18
Stockton
$ 14
$ 14
Hialeah
$ 4
$ 4
Median , All Cities : $ 81 $ 83 * Cities whose spending is based on past-year information .
CITY PARK FACTS :: THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND 21