4.7 Article

Neighbourhood amenities and health: Examining the significance of a local park

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 1-8

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.008

关键词

Ottawa; Ontario; Supportive housing; Therapeutic spaces; Sense of belonging; Marginalized women; Neighbourhood park; Green space

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports the results of a qualitative study that examines the links between neighbourhood spaces and quality of life for nine formerly homeless women who live in a supportive housing development in Ottawa, Ontario. It explores a local park that participants subjectively identified as the most meaningful place influencing their health and quality of life. Looking at the neighbourhood from the participants' perspectives, this paper discusses the links between access to nearby urban green space, feelings of well-being, and having a sense of belonging to the broader community. The primary methods used in our study were photovoice, whereby participants were asked to take pictures of both healthy and unhealthy aspects of their neighbourhood, and participant observation of the women's interactions with their immediate and neighbourhood living environments. The participants used photographs as a tool to help describe their experiences of the park as not only a therapeutic or health-promoting place, but also an un-therapeutic or health-denying place. Participant observation helped fill the gaps that women were unable to articulate in the interviews. The results reveal that participants placed more emphasis on inclusive (free of charge) social events and the ability to interact with others at the park than on its aesthetics. This finding supports the notion that while beautification certainly has value, resources to support free community events in public spaces are at least equally important for establishing feelings of inclusion in the community among marginalized populations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据