A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: A novel methodology and case study application

Ibes, Dorothy C.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.014

Cited by 106 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, while two studies may employ the same label to describe their greenspace type, the type may vary between studies. For example, a "neighborhood park" may describe a greenspace smaller than 4 hectares in one study (Brown et al 2014) but a cluster group of greenspaces with similar spatial, land cover, built, and social characteristics for another (Ibes 2015). Last, how studies observe these characteristics can also vary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Last, how studies observe these characteristics can also vary. For example, the "amenity" characteristic could be the count (Sugiyama et al 2010), diversity (Ibes 2015), or qualities of greenspace amenities (Bell et al 2007). Despite the challenges of classifying greenspace, it remains theoretically important given that multiple studies suggest residents prefer particular greenspace types (Brown et al 2014;Korpela et al 2010;Sugiyama et al 2010), and that residents are willing to pay higher property prices to live closer to particular greenspace types (Anderson & West 2006;Ham et al 2012;Panduro & Veie 2013;Saphores & Li 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greenspace social equity research has mixed findings since both poorer Crawford et al 2008;Dai 2011;Estabrook et al 2003;Mitchell & Popham 2008;Sister et al 2010;Timperio et al 2007) and wealthier social groups are associated with having greenspace inequities (Barbosa et al 2007;Macintyre et al 2008;Mavoa et al 2014). These contradictory findings may be contextual but it is also notable that few of these studies distinguish greenspace types (for exceptions, see Ham et al 2012;Ibes 2015;Macintyre et al 2008) and social equity operationalizations routinely vary between studies (see appendix 2), which again limits comparability between studies. Each of these social equity measures can be considered as belonging to one of three general operationalizations of social equity that from this point onwards I classify as: (1) provision, (2) accessibility, and (3) population pressure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity

Kimpton

2017

Applied Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban planners frequently adhere to 'park minimum standards' to ensure that public health and environmental benefits associated with greenspace are socially equitable. These standards denote the extent and placement of greenspaces, but rarely consider their form and function. Arguably, an inclusive evaluation of greenspace social equity requires the comparison of greenspace types. To address if greenspace types are socially equitable, I develop a novel spatial analytic approach that classifies 4,265 greenspaces according to twelve functional, physical characteristics. I then compare the social equity of these greenspace types using multiple operationalizations of social equity (provision, accessibility, and population pressure) throughout 4,524 neighborhoods in a capital city in Australia. I find that greenspace social equity varies for each of these types. For example, results reveal that affluent households have an abundance of amenity rich greenspaces and few amenity poor ones. Further, by comparing across multiple social equity operationalizations, I find that affluent households may have a deficit of the amenity poor greenspace type, but live closer to this type.These findings confirm that employing a greenspace typology and multiple social equity operationalizations can deepen our understanding of the association between social equity and greenspace provision. This spatial analytic approach is both adaptable for examining other urban land use types, and portable to other urban contexts, and can aid urban planners, researchers, and policy makers to understand how to improve the social equity of publicly beneficial greenspace types.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity

Kimpton

2017

Applied Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Matsuoka and Kaplan (2008) provided a review that focused on the health benefits of urban green spaces, while Ibes (2015) recently presented a review of the positive effects of an urban park system on biodiversity, social cohesion as well as economic factors like property values and cities attractiveness for tourists. Low et al (2005) as well as Whyte (1980) state that these effects can, to a certain extent, also be attributed to grey open spaces, although variations occur depending on the social and cultural composition of an area.…”

Section: The Role Of Open Spaces For a Sustainable Development Of Tibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Sustainable Territories-in-Between: A Multidimensional Typology of Open Spaces in Europe

Wandl

Rooij

Rocco

2016

Planning Practice & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To improve the ecosystem service provided by open spaces in dispersed urban areas is a key challenge for sustainable spatial development in Europe. The typology presented in this article illustrates the different potentials that open spaces in territories-in-between have across 10 cases in Europe. Unlike other typologies, neither function nor form is used for the classification, but the potential interaction of open spaces with social, technical and ecological networks. Therefore, the typology informs regional spatial planning and design about the potential ecosystem services in networked urban regions. Thereby the importance of territories-in-between, which are often neglected by mainstream spatial planning and design, for sustainable development is highlighted.

show abstract

“…An abundance of previous research has been conducted on spatial equity. The research objects focused on various types of public facilities such as commercial service facilities [12], health care facilities [13,14], education facilities [15], cultural facilities [16], parks [17][18][19][20][21], sports facilities [22] and other service facilities [23,24]. While in China, with the issuing of new urban planning establishment means by the Ministry of Construction at the end of 2005, the maintenance of social equity had started to be recognized as an important guiding principle, and especially in reference to the interests of low-income groups and socially vulnerable groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Equity Measure on Urban Ecological Space Layout Based on Accessibility of Socially Vulnerable Groups—A Case Study of Changting, China

Yuan

Wang

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The improper layout of urban public parks leads to the difference between citizens sharing or not sharing this kind of public resource, particularly in the historical districts of mountainous cities in China. The purpose of this study is to explore the spatial equity and quantitative measures of urban public parks' layouts by building a demand index of socially vulnerable groups sharing public parks based on the accessibility evaluation model. In this paper, Changting-a famous national historical and cultural city-is taken as the empirical object, then the accessibility and social equity of public parks is quantitatively measured with the aid of the field investigation method, the spatial analysis model of geographic information system (GIS) and the SPSS statistical analysis method. The results indicate that it is feasible to measure the spatial equity of urban public parks with the accessibility and demand index of socially vulnerable groups, and it can effectively characterize the rationality and social equity of urban ecological space. It shows that a degree of spatial mismatch exists between the distribution of urban public parks and that of residents, that is to say the spatial distribution of public parks is not equitable in terms of accessibility or residents' demands. Therefore, the data suggest that the spatial patterns and accessibility levels of parks in Changting County-especially the historical districts-should be further improved and perfected to achieve high levels of accessibility and equity through urban green space system planning. The paper may be used as a scientific reference for the planning and construction of ecological urban spaces. It can also provide useful decision-making guidance for urban planners in investigating, analyzing, and adjusting the distribution of public service facilities to achieve equitable outcomes, while promoting the harmonious and sustainable development of mountainous cities.

show abstract

A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: A novel methodology and case study application

Cited by 106 publications

References 73 publications

A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity

A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity

Towards Sustainable Territories-in-Between: A Multidimensional Typology of Open Spaces in Europe

Spatial Equity Measure on Urban Ecological Space Layout Based on Accessibility of Socially Vulnerable Groups—A Case Study of Changting, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About