共 50 条
Area-Level Disparities of Public Open Space: A Geographic Information Systems Analysis in Metropolitan Melbourne
被引:34
|作者:
Mavoa, Suzanne
[1
,2
]
Koohsari, Mohammad Javad
[1
,3
]
Badland, Hannah M.
[1
]
Davern, Melanie
[1
]
Feng, Xiaoqi
[4
]
Astell-Burt, Thomas
[5
,6
]
Giles-Corti, Billie
[1
]
机构:
[1] Univ Melbourne, McCaughey VicHlth Ctr Community Wellbeing, Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
[2] Massey Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, SHORE & Whariki Res Ctr, Auckland, New Zealand
[3] Baker IDI Heart & Diabet Inst, Behav Epidemiol Lab, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Univ Western Sydney, Sch Med, Ctr Hlth Res, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[5] Univ Western Sydney, Sch Sci & Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[6] Univ St Andrews, Sch Geog & Geosci, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland
基金:
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词:
Public open space;
geographic information systems;
equity;
accessibility;
Melbourne;
URBAN GREEN SPACE;
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE;
PHYSICAL-ACTIVITY;
BUILT ENVIRONMENT;
POORER ACCESS;
HEALTH;
NEIGHBORHOOD;
WALKING;
PARKS;
ACCESSIBILITY;
D O I:
10.1080/08111146.2014.974747
中图分类号:
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号:
08 ;
0830 ;
摘要:
This article examines differences in proximity to, and size of, four types of public open space for different levels of socio-economic disadvantage in metropolitan Melbourne. Since the provision of public open space in Melbourne is guided by the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP), this article also demonstrates the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a tool to compare the current distribution of public open space with policy. Measures of distance to, and size of, the closest public open space were derived using GIS and analysed according to area-level socio-economic disadvantage. A novel method of estimating public open space access points is introduced.Over one-third of dwellings in metropolitan Melbourne were located in areas that did not align with the VPP public open space proximity standard; however, we found no evidence of a socio-economic gradient in terms of compliance. There were statistically significant differences between disadvantaged and advantaged areas with respect to proximity to, and size of, public open space. However, while the differences were statistically significant the magnitudes of the differences were small. Future research needs to investigate how different measures (e.g. quality, size) can be included in planning regulations to support equitable provision of public open space.
引用
收藏
页码:306 / 323
页数:18
相关论文