Assessing accessibility and crowding in urban green spaces: A comparative study of approaches

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Barbara Czesak , Renata Różycka-Czas
{"title":"Assessing accessibility and crowding in urban green spaces: A comparative study of approaches","authors":"Barbara Czesak ,&nbsp;Renata Różycka-Czas","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Urban green spaces (UGS) are pivotal elements of the structure of urbanised areas, important for the well-being of the city inhabitants. Therefore, it is necessary to provide tools for determining the accessibility and crowdedness of the UGS. To this end, we assess how much space there is for potential UGS users in individual green spaces. It is pilot quantitative study limited to an area of one city, showing the crowdedness of UGS in two approaches. In both approaches, we assume an extreme event observed in the time of pandemic that all people in the accessible distance visit a UGS at the same time. In the approaches, we have combined parameters from literature and the idea that analysing UGS accessibility could be size sensitive to come up with methods for assessing residents’ accessibility to green spaces with spatial analysis. Our study shows the variability of UGS accessibility throughout the city. The results indicate that to identify areas in cities with insufficient UGS, analyses using the commonly referenced 300-meter accessibility measure may be sufficient. However, for a more comprehensive assessment of UGS accessibility, it is necessary to conduct studies that are sensitive to UGS size and factor in the estimated population within it. The study tackles the UGS accessibility problems in a novel way of comparing two popular approaches and providing practical insights. The approaches may be useful for spatial planning practices to show the differences in local UGS accessibility and delimit areas with lower UGS accessibility. The findings may support the municipality in the practical task of monitoring the crowding of UGS in the city and facilitate decision making in the new UGS site selection process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":"257 ","pages":"Article 105301"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","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/S0169204625000088","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

Urban green spaces (UGS) are pivotal elements of the structure of urbanised areas, important for the well-being of the city inhabitants. Therefore, it is necessary to provide tools for determining the accessibility and crowdedness of the UGS. To this end, we assess how much space there is for potential UGS users in individual green spaces. It is pilot quantitative study limited to an area of one city, showing the crowdedness of UGS in two approaches. In both approaches, we assume an extreme event observed in the time of pandemic that all people in the accessible distance visit a UGS at the same time. In the approaches, we have combined parameters from literature and the idea that analysing UGS accessibility could be size sensitive to come up with methods for assessing residents’ accessibility to green spaces with spatial analysis. Our study shows the variability of UGS accessibility throughout the city. The results indicate that to identify areas in cities with insufficient UGS, analyses using the commonly referenced 300-meter accessibility measure may be sufficient. However, for a more comprehensive assessment of UGS accessibility, it is necessary to conduct studies that are sensitive to UGS size and factor in the estimated population within it. The study tackles the UGS accessibility problems in a novel way of comparing two popular approaches and providing practical insights. The approaches may be useful for spatial planning practices to show the differences in local UGS accessibility and delimit areas with lower UGS accessibility. The findings may support the municipality in the practical task of monitoring the crowding of UGS in the city and facilitate decision making in the new UGS site selection process.

Abstract Image

评价城市绿地的可达性和拥挤性:方法的比较研究
城市绿地(UGS)是城市化地区结构的关键要素,对城市居民的福祉至关重要。因此,有必要提供工具来确定UGS的可达性和拥挤性。为此,我们评估了单个绿地中有多少空间可供潜在的UGS用户使用。这是一项试点定量研究,仅限于一个城市的一个区域,显示了两种方法的UGS拥挤。在这两种方法中,我们假设在大流行期间观察到一个极端事件,即所有可到达距离内的人同时访问UGS。在这些方法中,我们将文献中的参数和分析UGS可达性可能对大小敏感的想法结合起来,提出了通过空间分析评估居民对绿地可达性的方法。我们的研究显示了整个城市UGS可达性的可变性。结果表明,对于城市中UGS不足的区域,使用常用的300米可达性指标进行分析可能是足够的。然而,为了更全面地评估UGS的可达性,有必要进行对UGS规模和其中估计人口因素敏感的研究。该研究以一种新颖的方式解决了UGS可访问性问题,比较了两种流行的方法,并提供了实用的见解。这些方法可用于空间规划实践,以显示当地UGS可达性的差异,并划定UGS可达性较低的区域。研究结果可以支持市政当局监测城市中UGS拥挤的实际任务,并促进新的UGS选址过程中的决策。
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