Limitations of existing park quality instruments and suggestions for future research

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
KangJae “Jerry” Lee , Myla F.J. Aronson , Jeffrey A.G. Clark , Fushcia-Ann Hoover , Hogyeum Evan Joo , Peleg Kremer , Daniele La Rosa , Kelli L. Larson , Christopher A. Lepczyk , Susannah B. Lerman , Dexter H. Locke , Charles H. Nilon , Hamil Pearsall , Timothy L.V. Vargo
{"title":"Limitations of existing park quality instruments and suggestions for future research","authors":"KangJae “Jerry” Lee ,&nbsp;Myla F.J. Aronson ,&nbsp;Jeffrey A.G. Clark ,&nbsp;Fushcia-Ann Hoover ,&nbsp;Hogyeum Evan Joo ,&nbsp;Peleg Kremer ,&nbsp;Daniele La Rosa ,&nbsp;Kelli L. Larson ,&nbsp;Christopher A. Lepczyk ,&nbsp;Susannah B. Lerman ,&nbsp;Dexter H. Locke ,&nbsp;Charles H. Nilon ,&nbsp;Hamil Pearsall ,&nbsp;Timothy L.V. Vargo","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Public parks are critical urban infrastructures offering health, environmental, social, and cultural benefits to people. However, the idea of park quality has lacked a clear operational definition and normative standard for measurement. We provide critical insights into existing park quality instruments and advocate for an alternative approach. First, due to the significant diversity in parks, inherent ambiguity and subjectivity in the idea of quality, and previous instruments’ inconsistent operationalizations of park quality, we recommend that future research shift its focus from creating instruments for universal application and standardized measurement to developing an inventory or list of park quality indicators that researchers and practitioners can selectively choose for their unique park contexts. Second, through our multidisciplinary examination, we identify five limitations in existing park quality instruments: (1) lack of attention to the histories of marginalized communities, (2) overemphasis on physical activities and public health, (3) lack of attention to ecological function and biodiversity, (4) lack of subjective measurements, and (5) insufficient consideration of multiple parks or a park system. Overall, a more flexible and site-specific approach to park quality measurement and the adoption of new indicators of park quality are expected to accomplish a more comprehensive and fairer assessment of park quality, contributing to park equity research and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":"249 ","pages":"Article 105127"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624001269","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public parks are critical urban infrastructures offering health, environmental, social, and cultural benefits to people. However, the idea of park quality has lacked a clear operational definition and normative standard for measurement. We provide critical insights into existing park quality instruments and advocate for an alternative approach. First, due to the significant diversity in parks, inherent ambiguity and subjectivity in the idea of quality, and previous instruments’ inconsistent operationalizations of park quality, we recommend that future research shift its focus from creating instruments for universal application and standardized measurement to developing an inventory or list of park quality indicators that researchers and practitioners can selectively choose for their unique park contexts. Second, through our multidisciplinary examination, we identify five limitations in existing park quality instruments: (1) lack of attention to the histories of marginalized communities, (2) overemphasis on physical activities and public health, (3) lack of attention to ecological function and biodiversity, (4) lack of subjective measurements, and (5) insufficient consideration of multiple parks or a park system. Overall, a more flexible and site-specific approach to park quality measurement and the adoption of new indicators of park quality are expected to accomplish a more comprehensive and fairer assessment of park quality, contributing to park equity research and practice.

现有公园质量工具的局限性及未来研究建议
公共公园是重要的城市基础设施,为人们带来健康、环境、社会和文化方面的益处。然而,公园质量的概念一直缺乏明确的操作定义和规范的衡量标准。我们对现有的公园质量工具提出了重要见解,并主张采用另一种方法。首先,由于公园的多样性、公园质量概念的固有模糊性和主观性,以及以前的工具对公园质量的操作性不一致,我们建议未来的研究重点应从创建普遍应用和标准化测量的工具转向开发公园质量指标的清单或列表,以便研究人员和从业人员可以根据其独特的公园环境进行选择。其次,通过多学科研究,我们发现了现有公园质量工具的五个局限性:(1) 缺乏对边缘化社区历史的关注,(2) 过分强调体育活动和公众健康,(3) 缺乏对生态功能和生物多样性的关注,(4) 缺乏主观测量,(5) 对多个公园或公园系统的考虑不足。总之,采用更加灵活和针对具体地点的方法来衡量公园质量,并采用新的公园质量指标,有望实现更加全面和公平的公园质量评估,从而促进公园公平研究和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Landscape and Urban Planning
Landscape and Urban Planning 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信