4.3 Article

Assessing equality in neighbourhood availability of quality greenspace in Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

期刊

LANDSCAPE RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 584-597

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2022.2051458

关键词

Deprivation; equality; Glasgow; greenspace; justice

资金

  1. School of Applied Social Studies at Robert Gordon University - Economic and Social Research Council [ES/W000172/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study assesses the relationship between neighbourhood-level deprivation and local greenspace quality in Glasgow, Scotland. It reveals a statistically significant correlation between deprivation and greenspace quality, with more disadvantaged areas having lower-quality greenspace. This highlights the importance of considering socioeconomic factors in greenspace planning and management to ensure equitable access to quality greenspace.
We assess the relationship between neighbourhood-level deprivation and local greenspace quality in Glasgow, Scotland. There is interest globally in inequality within the accessibility of urban greenspace. It is recognised that social and political inequalities can lead to less well-off areas having less or lower-quality greenspace. We evaluate the relationship between neighbourhood-level deprivation and greenspace quality by combining socio-economic data with assessment of neighbourhood greenspace from Google Street View, subjecting our observations to statistical testing. On nearly all measures of greenspace quality, there is a statistically significant correlation between deprivation and greenspace quality, with more disadvantaged areas having lower-quality greenspace. We show it is not only the presence or extent of greenspace, but also the characteristics within greenspaces, that vary with deprivation. As existing research suggests, greenspace attributes such as tranquillity, greenness and perceived safety are important to unlock the health, wellbeing and resilience benefits that good quality greenspace can provide.

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

4.3
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