规划休憩用地及康乐设施

IF 1.2 Q2 Social Sciences
A. J. Veal
{"title":"规划休憩用地及康乐设施","authors":"A. J. Veal","doi":"10.1080/07293682.2020.1739091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent decades have seen efforts by open space/recreation planners to provide an alternative to traditional population-ratio and area-percentage planning standards. Traditional standards have been criticised for their ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and their failure to take account of increasing residential densities. This paper evaluates two of the alternatives which have emerged: the catchment access based standard (CABS) and demand-based planning. The CABS is found to be just a variation on traditional standards. Published demand-based approaches are found to lack methodological detail and are based on a relatively passive policy stance. In contrast, state and federal governments have begun to adopt a more active stance in setting targets to increase community sport/recreation participation levels, based particularly on health-based criteria. It is argued that participation targets could also form the focus of local planning, especially in the context of a proposed coordinated local-state-federal planning framework.","PeriodicalId":45599,"journal":{"name":"Australian Planner","volume":"56 1","pages":"37 - 47"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07293682.2020.1739091","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planning for open space and recreation\",\"authors\":\"A. J. Veal\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07293682.2020.1739091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Recent decades have seen efforts by open space/recreation planners to provide an alternative to traditional population-ratio and area-percentage planning standards. Traditional standards have been criticised for their ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and their failure to take account of increasing residential densities. This paper evaluates two of the alternatives which have emerged: the catchment access based standard (CABS) and demand-based planning. The CABS is found to be just a variation on traditional standards. Published demand-based approaches are found to lack methodological detail and are based on a relatively passive policy stance. In contrast, state and federal governments have begun to adopt a more active stance in setting targets to increase community sport/recreation participation levels, based particularly on health-based criteria. It is argued that participation targets could also form the focus of local planning, especially in the context of a proposed coordinated local-state-federal planning framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Planner\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"37 - 47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07293682.2020.1739091\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Planner\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2020.1739091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Planner","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2020.1739091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要近几十年来,开放空间/娱乐规划者努力提供一种替代传统人口比例和面积百分比规划标准的方法。传统标准因其“一刀切”的方法以及未能考虑到不断增加的居住密度而受到批评。本文评估了已经出现的两种替代方案:基于集水区接入的标准(CABS)和基于需求的规划。CABS被发现只是传统标准的一个变体。已公布的基于需求的方法缺乏方法细节,并且基于相对被动的政策立场。相比之下,州和联邦政府已开始采取更积极的立场,制定目标,特别是基于健康标准,提高社区体育/娱乐参与水平。有人认为,参与目标也可以成为地方规划的重点,特别是在拟议的地方-州-联邦协调规划框架的背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Planning for open space and recreation
ABSTRACT Recent decades have seen efforts by open space/recreation planners to provide an alternative to traditional population-ratio and area-percentage planning standards. Traditional standards have been criticised for their ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and their failure to take account of increasing residential densities. This paper evaluates two of the alternatives which have emerged: the catchment access based standard (CABS) and demand-based planning. The CABS is found to be just a variation on traditional standards. Published demand-based approaches are found to lack methodological detail and are based on a relatively passive policy stance. In contrast, state and federal governments have begun to adopt a more active stance in setting targets to increase community sport/recreation participation levels, based particularly on health-based criteria. It is argued that participation targets could also form the focus of local planning, especially in the context of a proposed coordinated local-state-federal planning framework.
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
Australian Planner
Australian Planner REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
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