Navigating Post-COVID-19 Social–Spatial Inequity: Unravelling the Nexus between Community Conditions, Social Perception, and Spatial Differentiation

Abstract

The 2023 SDGs report underscores the prolonged disruption of COVID-19 on community living spaces, infrastructure, education, and income equality, exacerbating social and spatial inequality. Against the backdrop of the dual impact of significant events and the emergence of digital technologies, a coherent research trajectory is essential for characterizing social–spatial equity and understanding its influential factors within the urban planning discipline. While prior research emphasized spatial dimensions and mitigated spatial differentiation to ensure urban equity, the complexity of these interconnections necessitates a more comprehensive approach. This study adopts a holistic perspective, focusing on the “social–spatial” dynamics, utilizing social perception (sentiment maps) and spatial differentiation (housing prices index) pre- and post-pandemic to elucidate the interconnected and interactive nature of uneven development at the urban scale. It employs a multi-dimensional methodological framework integrating morphology analysis of housing conditions, GIS analysis of urban amenities, sentiment semantic analysis of public opinion, and multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR) analysis of correlation influential factors. Using Suzhou, China, as a pilot study, this research demonstrates how these integrated methods complement each other, exploring how community conditions and resource distribution collectively bolster resilience, thereby maintaining social–spatial equity amidst pandemic disruptions. The findings reveal that uneven resource distribution exacerbates post-pandemic social stratification and spatial differentiation. The proximity of well-maintained ecological environments, such as parks or scenic landmarks, generally exhibits consistency and positive effects on “social–spatial” measurement. Simultaneously, various spatial elements influencing housing prices and social perception show geographic heterogeneity, particularly in areas farther from the central regions of Xiangcheng and Wujiang districts. This study uncovers a bilateral mechanism between social perception and spatial differentiation, aiming to delve into the interdependent relationship between social–spatial equity and built environmental factors. Furthermore, it aspires to provide meaningful references and recommendations for urban planning and regeneration policy formulation in the digital era to sustain social–spatial equity.

Impacts of Built Environment on Urban Vitality in Cultural Districts: A Case Study of Haikou and Suzhou

“…In the specific context of Suzhou, the impact of the built environment on the spatial variation in shared bicycle usage during weekdays and weekends is investigated in terms of density, diversity, and destination accessibility [45]. Social-spatial dynamics are quantified through factors such as community elements, public facilities distance, and public facility density in Suzhou [46]. A review on the differences between urban and rural bed and breakfast (B&B) distributions in Haikou found that the distance from a highway is crucial for the urban distribution of B&Bs, while road network density, representing transportation accessibility, is a significant factor influencing the rural distribution of B&Bs.…”

Community Quality Evaluation for Socially Sustainable Regeneration: A Study Using Multi-Sourced Geospatial Data and AI-Based Image Semantic Segmentation

“…At the community level, social sustainability pertains to attaining a sustainable QoL, achieved by comprehending people's needs and fostering a sense of belonging in community quality and management [26,27]. Relevant studies have identified social equity, social participation, and basic needs as pivotal factors for assessing social sustainability at the community level [28][29][30]. However, effective quantitative evaluation indicators and methods for assess-ing social sustainability remain lacking, given the challenges in defining and quantifying social equity and participation [31,32].…”

“…J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 28 participation, and basic needs as pivotal factors for assessing social sustainability at the community level [28][29][30]. However, effective quantitative evaluation indicators and methods for assessing social sustainability remain lacking, given the challenges in defining and quantifying social equity and participation [31,32].…”