4.7 Article

Accessibility analysis and optimization strategy of urban green space in Qingdao City Center, China

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 156, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111087

关键词

Urban green space; Gaussian two-step floating catchment area; method; Accessibility; Residential quarter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapid urbanization in China has led to an uneven distribution of Urban Green Space (UGS) resources. This study analyzes the accessibility of UGS in Qingdao City Center using the expanded model of Gaussian Two-Step Floating Catchment Area Method. The results show a circular structure of UGS accessibility with a gap between supply and demand. Based on the analysis, optimization strategies and spatial intentions are proposed.
Rapid urbanization in China results in an uneven distribution of Urban Green Space (UGS) resources. This study aims to provide a scientific basis for optimizing the layout of UGS during the urban renewal process. This study takes Qingdao City Center of China as an example. Using the expanded model of Gaussian Two-Step Floating Catchment Area Method, different search thresholds are set based on the service scale and radius of UGS. This analysis delves into the distribution characteristics of UGS accessibility by walking. The results show that the accessibility of UGS in the Qingdao City Center presents an obvious circular structure, with Badaguan Block and Jinmen Block as the high-value core of accessibility that gradually decrease toward the periphery. There is a significant gap between the supply of UGS and the actual demand of the residential population, and 65.49% of residential quarters in Shinan District have lower accessibility of UGS than the average level of the whole district. According to the results of accessibility analysis, the optimization strategies and spatial intentions are proposed from three aspects: the renewal of existing spaces, the integration and utilization of resources, and the improvement of the UGS system.

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