私人花园作为城市绿地:它们能弥补社会经济水平较低的社区绿地使用率低的问题吗?

Q2 Environmental Science
Landscape Online Pub Date : 2018-05-18 DOI:10.3097/LO.201859
L. Farahani, C. Maller, Kath Phelan
{"title":"私人花园作为城市绿地:它们能弥补社会经济水平较低的社区绿地使用率低的问题吗?","authors":"L. Farahani, C. Maller, Kath Phelan","doi":"10.3097/LO.201859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increasing process of urbanisation has major implications for the environment, biodiversity, and health and well-being of urban residents. Empirical evidence for urban greening benefits suggests that it is anappropriate planning and policy approach for tackling some of the problems associated with urbanisation, including biodiversity loss and heat island effects. Gardens on private residential lots represent a substantial proportion of greenspaces in low density cities with extensive suburban areas. Drawing on a qualitative study of residents in Sunshine North, Melbourne, Australia, this paper discusses three questions about the relationship of private gardens to public greenspaces: 1) how does residents' use of private gardens impact their use of other neighbourhood greenspaces; 2) can private gardens address inequality of access to greenspaces in lower income neighbourhoods; and, 3) what does this imply for planning and neighbourhood design? Contrary to previous research, the findings did not show a meaningful relationship between residents' use of their gardens and local greenspaces, and further, that large yards and gardens do not substitute for poor access to local greenspaces. The paper concludes that policy makers and planners cannot assume private gardens and public greenspaces are interchangeable. While private gardens and local greenspaces can both provide positive benefits to residents, private gardens do not act as a substitute for local greenspaces in neighbourhoods of varying socio-economic status.","PeriodicalId":38803,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Online","volume":"59 1","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private Gardens as Urban Greenspaces: Can They Compensate for Poor Greenspace Access in Lower Socioeconomic Neighbourhoods?\",\"authors\":\"L. Farahani, C. Maller, Kath Phelan\",\"doi\":\"10.3097/LO.201859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The increasing process of urbanisation has major implications for the environment, biodiversity, and health and well-being of urban residents. Empirical evidence for urban greening benefits suggests that it is anappropriate planning and policy approach for tackling some of the problems associated with urbanisation, including biodiversity loss and heat island effects. Gardens on private residential lots represent a substantial proportion of greenspaces in low density cities with extensive suburban areas. Drawing on a qualitative study of residents in Sunshine North, Melbourne, Australia, this paper discusses three questions about the relationship of private gardens to public greenspaces: 1) how does residents' use of private gardens impact their use of other neighbourhood greenspaces; 2) can private gardens address inequality of access to greenspaces in lower income neighbourhoods; and, 3) what does this imply for planning and neighbourhood design? Contrary to previous research, the findings did not show a meaningful relationship between residents' use of their gardens and local greenspaces, and further, that large yards and gardens do not substitute for poor access to local greenspaces. The paper concludes that policy makers and planners cannot assume private gardens and public greenspaces are interchangeable. While private gardens and local greenspaces can both provide positive benefits to residents, private gardens do not act as a substitute for local greenspaces in neighbourhoods of varying socio-economic status.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38803,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Landscape Online\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"1-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Landscape Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201859\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

日益增长的城市化进程对环境、生物多样性以及城市居民的健康和福祉具有重大影响。城市绿化效益的经验证据表明,它是解决与城市化有关的一些问题的适当规划和政策方法,包括生物多样性丧失和热岛效应。在拥有广阔郊区的低密度城市中,私人住宅地块上的花园代表了相当大比例的绿色空间。本文通过对澳大利亚墨尔本Sunshine North居民的定性研究,探讨了关于私人花园与公共绿地关系的三个问题:1)居民对私人花园的使用如何影响他们对其他社区绿地的使用;2)私人花园能否解决低收入社区进入绿地的不平等问题?3)这对规划和社区设计意味着什么?与之前的研究相反,研究结果并没有显示出居民对花园的使用与当地绿色空间之间存在有意义的关系,而且,大院子和花园并不能替代难以进入当地绿色空间的情况。该论文的结论是,政策制定者和规划者不能假设私人花园和公共绿地是可以互换的。虽然私人花园和当地绿地都能给居民带来积极的好处,但在不同社会经济地位的社区,私人花园并不能替代当地的绿地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Private Gardens as Urban Greenspaces: Can They Compensate for Poor Greenspace Access in Lower Socioeconomic Neighbourhoods?
The increasing process of urbanisation has major implications for the environment, biodiversity, and health and well-being of urban residents. Empirical evidence for urban greening benefits suggests that it is anappropriate planning and policy approach for tackling some of the problems associated with urbanisation, including biodiversity loss and heat island effects. Gardens on private residential lots represent a substantial proportion of greenspaces in low density cities with extensive suburban areas. Drawing on a qualitative study of residents in Sunshine North, Melbourne, Australia, this paper discusses three questions about the relationship of private gardens to public greenspaces: 1) how does residents' use of private gardens impact their use of other neighbourhood greenspaces; 2) can private gardens address inequality of access to greenspaces in lower income neighbourhoods; and, 3) what does this imply for planning and neighbourhood design? Contrary to previous research, the findings did not show a meaningful relationship between residents' use of their gardens and local greenspaces, and further, that large yards and gardens do not substitute for poor access to local greenspaces. The paper concludes that policy makers and planners cannot assume private gardens and public greenspaces are interchangeable. While private gardens and local greenspaces can both provide positive benefits to residents, private gardens do not act as a substitute for local greenspaces in neighbourhoods of varying socio-economic status.
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
Landscape Online
Landscape Online Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Landscape Online focuses on studies dealing with landscape research. The subject matter deals with any scientific, educational or applied aspect of processes, dynamics, indicators, controllers and visions related to landscapes. Furthermore, Landscape Online emphasizes the coupling of societal and natural systems, not only the involvement of human impact on landscape systems but also human perception of the landscape, its values and the evaluation of landscapes. Moreover, articles are appropriate that deal with landscape theory, system approaches and conceptual models of landscape, both their improvement and their discussion. Papers may be undisciplinary or multidisciplinary but have interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary appeal. All kinds of articles or parts of it must not be published beforehand in another journal
×
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