4.6 Article

Decision Making on Allocating Urban Green Spaces Based upon Spatially-Varying Relationships between Urban Green Spaces and Urban Compaction Degree

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 7, Issue 10, Pages 13399-13415

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su71013399

Keywords

compact city; degree of urban compaction; urban green spaces (UGS); geographically weighted regression (GWR)

Funding

  1. National Science Council of ROC [NSC 102-2410-H-006-074]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The compact city is becoming a prevailing paradigm in the world to control urban sprawl and achieve a pattern of sustainable urban development. However, discussions of the area's overcrowded neighborhoods, its health problems, and the destruction of its green areas have inspired self-examination with respect to the compact city paradigm. High population density attracts even more residents and frequently renders the existing urban green space (UGS) insufficient for use as part of a living environment. Due to the unique benefits that these qualities confer, UGS allocation is now considered a significant contributing factor to urban livability. In addition, the UGS allocation may be different due to the presence of many spatial non-stationarity processes. Therefore, this study employs geographically-weighted regression (GWR) to explore the unique and spatially-explicit relationships between the degree of urban compaction and UGS within the Taipei metropolitan area. Maps summarizing the GWR results demonstrate that there is significantly insufficient UGS allocation in the central area, which consists mainly of Taipei City. Townships with higher parameters contain UGS levels that better meet the needs of their residents. Overall, the exploration of conceptualizing spatial heterogeneity of relationships between the degree of urban compaction and UGS can provide insightful analyses for decision-making on allocating UGS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available