绿色空间质量的社会经济差异:来自墨尔本市的见解

IF 3.5 Q3 GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
A. Ghanem, R. Edirisinghe
{"title":"绿色空间质量的社会经济差异:来自墨尔本市的见解","authors":"A. Ghanem, R. Edirisinghe","doi":"10.1108/sasbe-11-2022-0247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper takes a prudent approach to assessing the quality of greenspace in low- and high socio-economic status (SES) settings. Socio-economic data from deprivation indexes were used to systematically define low- and high-SES suburbs. A Geographical Information System (GIS) observation of greenspaces was used to score spaces according to a scoring criterion contingent on six quality facets. Statistics were then synthesised, producing a Cohen effect score highlighting disparities in each criterion between the two SES groups.Design/methodology/approachAs the phenomena of locational prejudice and meritocratic inequality continue to garner global attention, this paper extrapolates this to a world-renown metropolis, Melbourne. This paper endeavours to provide invaluable insights into the environmental injustice paradigm within greenspace and its respective quality.FindingsConclusive results affirmed a concerning disparity in the quality of greenspace between Melbourne's low- and high-SES settings. Cohen's effect size found that on average, there was a “medium” distinction between the spaces, whilst an individual focus on the quality facets concluded diverse findings.Research limitations/implicationsThe core of study adopted a meticulous virtual assessment to critique the quality of selected greenspaces opposed to an in-person-real world assessment which could garner more nuanced findings.Originality/valueExisting literature on Melbourne has prioritised distribution, proximity and accessibility domains when assessing inequitable greenspace and, consequently, has catalysed a research gap in greenspace quality. This is also one of the first papers to provide insight into the “Plan Melbourne” policy regarding urban regeneration and ameliorating public open spaces.","PeriodicalId":45779,"journal":{"name":"Smart and Sustainable Built Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Socio-economic disparities in greenspace quality: insights from the city of Melbourne\",\"authors\":\"A. Ghanem, R. Edirisinghe\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sasbe-11-2022-0247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper takes a prudent approach to assessing the quality of greenspace in low- and high socio-economic status (SES) settings. Socio-economic data from deprivation indexes were used to systematically define low- and high-SES suburbs. A Geographical Information System (GIS) observation of greenspaces was used to score spaces according to a scoring criterion contingent on six quality facets. Statistics were then synthesised, producing a Cohen effect score highlighting disparities in each criterion between the two SES groups.Design/methodology/approachAs the phenomena of locational prejudice and meritocratic inequality continue to garner global attention, this paper extrapolates this to a world-renown metropolis, Melbourne. This paper endeavours to provide invaluable insights into the environmental injustice paradigm within greenspace and its respective quality.FindingsConclusive results affirmed a concerning disparity in the quality of greenspace between Melbourne's low- and high-SES settings. Cohen's effect size found that on average, there was a “medium” distinction between the spaces, whilst an individual focus on the quality facets concluded diverse findings.Research limitations/implicationsThe core of study adopted a meticulous virtual assessment to critique the quality of selected greenspaces opposed to an in-person-real world assessment which could garner more nuanced findings.Originality/valueExisting literature on Melbourne has prioritised distribution, proximity and accessibility domains when assessing inequitable greenspace and, consequently, has catalysed a research gap in greenspace quality. This is also one of the first papers to provide insight into the “Plan Melbourne” policy regarding urban regeneration and ameliorating public open spaces.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Smart and Sustainable Built Environment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Smart and Sustainable Built Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-11-2022-0247\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Smart and Sustainable Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-11-2022-0247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本文采用一种谨慎的方法来评估低社会经济地位和高社会经济地位环境中的绿地质量。贫困指数的社会经济数据被用来系统地定义社会经济地位低和高的郊区。绿地的地理信息系统(GIS)观测被用于根据取决于六个质量方面的评分标准对空间进行评分。然后综合统计数据,产生科恩效应得分,突出两个SES组之间每个标准的差异。设计/方法论/方法随着位置偏见和精英不平等现象继续引起全球关注,本文将其外推到世界著名的大都市墨尔本。本文试图为绿地中的环境不公正范式及其各自的质量提供宝贵的见解。结论性结果肯定了墨尔本低SES和高SES环境之间绿地质量的令人担忧的差异。Cohen的效应大小发现,平均而言,空间之间存在“中等”差异,而个人对质量方面的关注则得出了不同的结论。研究局限性/含义研究的核心采用了细致的虚拟评估来批评选定绿地的质量,而不是亲自进行的现实世界评估,后者可以获得更细微的结果。独创性/价值墨尔本现有文献在评估不公平的绿地时,优先考虑了分布、邻近性和可及性领域,因此,加剧了绿地质量的研究差距。这也是首批深入了解“墨尔本计划”关于城市再生和改善公共开放空间政策的论文之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Socio-economic disparities in greenspace quality: insights from the city of Melbourne
PurposeThis paper takes a prudent approach to assessing the quality of greenspace in low- and high socio-economic status (SES) settings. Socio-economic data from deprivation indexes were used to systematically define low- and high-SES suburbs. A Geographical Information System (GIS) observation of greenspaces was used to score spaces according to a scoring criterion contingent on six quality facets. Statistics were then synthesised, producing a Cohen effect score highlighting disparities in each criterion between the two SES groups.Design/methodology/approachAs the phenomena of locational prejudice and meritocratic inequality continue to garner global attention, this paper extrapolates this to a world-renown metropolis, Melbourne. This paper endeavours to provide invaluable insights into the environmental injustice paradigm within greenspace and its respective quality.FindingsConclusive results affirmed a concerning disparity in the quality of greenspace between Melbourne's low- and high-SES settings. Cohen's effect size found that on average, there was a “medium” distinction between the spaces, whilst an individual focus on the quality facets concluded diverse findings.Research limitations/implicationsThe core of study adopted a meticulous virtual assessment to critique the quality of selected greenspaces opposed to an in-person-real world assessment which could garner more nuanced findings.Originality/valueExisting literature on Melbourne has prioritised distribution, proximity and accessibility domains when assessing inequitable greenspace and, consequently, has catalysed a research gap in greenspace quality. This is also one of the first papers to provide insight into the “Plan Melbourne” policy regarding urban regeneration and ameliorating public open spaces.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Smart and Sustainable Built Environment
Smart and Sustainable Built Environment GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
53
×
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