IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p5910-d279850.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Spatial Disparity of Access to Public Parks in Gated and Open Communities with an Improved G2SFCA Model

Author

Listed:
  • Jinguang Zhang

    (The College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjng 210037, China
    Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg 1958, Denmark)

  • Yingyi Cheng

    (The College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjng 210037, China
    Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg 1958, Denmark)

  • Wei Wei

    (The College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjng 210037, China
    Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg 1958, Denmark
    The College of Environmental Science, Nanjing XiaoZhuang University, Nanjng 21000, China)

  • Bing Zhao

    (The College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjng 210037, China)

Abstract

A major concern of social equity and environmental justice is whether urban green resources are equitably distributed across the compact megacities of China. Many previous studies have evaluated the disparities in park access among various social groups, but few researchers have considered the heterogeneity of the built environment in residential communities. This study revisits an increasingly popular Gaussian-two-step floating catchment area (G2SFCA) model and mainly improves its two core parameters, the comprehensive supply indicator and variable catchment, in order to realistically evaluate park accessibility under different travel modes. We choose Nanjing city, China, as the study case in which to evaluate differences in public park access with respect to gated and open communities using our improved model. Moreover, gated communities have been further divided into three categories, which represent differences in a community’s ability to provide daily physical activities, to more deeply explore disparities in public park services. The results show that (1) the spatial accessibility of parks in Nanjing city is not evenly distributed, with communities located north of the Yangtze River having inferior park accessibility; (2) residents who live in open communities are more restricted with regard to access to parks than those in gated communities, although they experience relatively small differences under the walking mode; (3) gated communities with no internal park (“club park”) enjoy better public park services; and (4) residents living in 105 open communities and 167 gated communities without a club park can be regarded as the most vulnerable groups based on the lack of park services. The results of this study can provide a scientific basis for policy makers to target specific communities of vulnerable groups for further urban park development.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinguang Zhang & Yingyi Cheng & Wei Wei & Bing Zhao, 2019. "Evaluating Spatial Disparity of Access to Public Parks in Gated and Open Communities with an Improved G2SFCA Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5910-:d:279850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5910/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5910/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wei Luo & Fahui Wang, 2003. "Measures of Spatial Accessibility to Health Care in a GIS Environment: Synthesis and a Case Study in the Chicago Region," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 30(6), pages 865-884, December.
    2. Emily Talen, 2003. "Neighborhoods as Service Providers: A Methodology for Evaluating Pedestrian Access," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 30(2), pages 181-200, April.
    3. Yang, Shu & Liu, Xuan & Wu, Yao-Jan & Woolschlager, John & Coffin, Sarah L., 2015. "Can freeway traffic volume information facilitate urban accessibility assessment?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 65-75.
    4. Coombes, Emma & Jones, Andrew P. & Hillsdon, Melvyn, 2010. "The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 816-822, March.
    5. Xu, Mengya & Xin, Jing & Su, Shiliang & Weng, Min & Cai, Zhongliang, 2017. "Social inequalities of park accessibility in Shenzhen, China: The role of park quality, transport modes, and hierarchical socioeconomic characteristics," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 38-50.
    6. Lin, Ting (Grace) & Xia, Jianhong (Cecilia) & Robinson, Todd P. & Goulias, Konstadinos G. & Church, Richard L. & Olaru, Doina & Tapin, John & Han, Renlong, 2014. "Spatial analysis of access to and accessibility surrounding train stations: a case study of accessibility for the elderly in Perth, Western Australia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 111-120.
    7. Fahui Wang & Quan Tang, 2013. "Planning toward Equal Accessibility to Services: A Quadratic Programming Approach," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(2), pages 195-212, April.
    8. Dajun Dai & Fahui Wang, 2011. "Geographic Disparities in Accessibility to Food Stores in Southwest Mississippi," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(4), pages 659-677, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zezhou Wu & Lu Yang & Kexi Xu & Jinming Zhang & Maxwell Fordjour Antwi-Afari, 2021. "Key Factors of Opening Gated Community in Urban Area: A Case Study of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-10, March.
    2. Joanna Wysmułek & Maria Hełdak & Anatolii Kucher, 2020. "The Analysis of Green Areas’ Accessibility in Comparison with Statistical Data in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Yuyang Zhou & Minhe Zhao & Songtao Tang & William H. K. Lam & Anthony Chen & N. N. Sze & Yanyan Chen, 2020. "Assessing the Relationship between Access Travel Time Estimation and the Accessibility to High Speed Railway Station by Different Travel Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Yilun Cao & Yuhan Guo & Mingjuan Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Equity of Urban Green Park Space Layout Based on Ga2SFCA Optimization Method—Taking the Core Area of Beijing as an Example," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Xiaoran Huang & Pixin Gong & Marcus White, 2022. "Study on Spatial Distribution Equilibrium of Elderly Care Facilities in Downtown Shanghai," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xu, Wangtu (Ato) & Li, Yongling & Wang, Hui, 2016. "Transit accessibility for commuters considering the demand elasticities of distance and transfer," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 138-156.
    2. Xu, Mengya & Xin, Jing & Su, Shiliang & Weng, Min & Cai, Zhongliang, 2017. "Social inequalities of park accessibility in Shenzhen, China: The role of park quality, transport modes, and hierarchical socioeconomic characteristics," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 38-50.
    3. Hyunjoong Kim & Fahui Wang, 2019. "Disparity in Spatial Access to Public Daycare and Kindergarten across GIS-Constructed Regions in Seoul, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Gerardo Carpentieri & Carmen Guida & Houshmand E. Masoumi, 2020. "Multimodal Accessibility to Primary Health Services for the Elderly: A Case Study of Naples, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Quxiao Chen & Chen Wang & Ge Lou & Mingyu Zhang & Shuang Wu, 2019. "Measurement of Urban Park Accessibility from the Quasi-Public Goods Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Liu, Xueli & Jiang, Chunxia & Wang, Feng & Yao, Shujie, 2021. "The impact of high-speed railway on urban housing prices in China: A network accessibility perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 84-99.
    7. Nabetse Baruc Blas-Miranda & Ana Lilia Lozada-Tequeanes & Juan Antonio Miranda-Zuñiga & Marcia P. Jimenez, 2022. "Green Space Exposure and Obesity in the Mexican Adult Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    8. Weiss, Adam & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2017. "Examining the difference between park and ride and kiss and ride station choices using a spatially weighted error correlation (SWEC) discrete choice model," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 111-119.
    9. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Jiang, Wenhao & Stickley, Andrew & Ueda, Michiko, 2021. "Green space and suicide mortality in Japan: An ecological study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    11. Scoppa, Martin & Bawazir, Khawla & Alawadi, Khaled, 2019. "Straddling boundaries in superblock cities. Assessing local and global network connectivity using cases from Abu Dhabi, UAE," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 770-782.
    12. Yuemei Zhu & Junxiang Ding & Qing Zhu & Yang Cheng & Qiuchen Ma & Xuze Ji, 2017. "The Impact of Green Open Space on Community Attachment—A Case Study of Three Communities in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Dawei Chen & Fangxu Mo & Ye Chen & Jun Zhang & Xinyu You, 2022. "Optimization of Ramp Locations along Freeways: A Dynamic Programming Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-13, August.
    14. Ranković Plazinić, Biljana & Jović, Jadranka, 2018. "Mobility and transport potential of elderly in differently accessible rural areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 169-180.
    15. Jing Shen & Jian Cui & Mengfei Li & Caitlin Vitosky Clarke & Yuanyuan Gao & Ruopeng An, 2021. "Green Space and Physical Activity in China: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Zhicheng Zheng & Haoming Xia & Shrinidhi Ambinakudige & Yaochen Qin & Yang Li & Zhixiang Xie & Lijun Zhang & Haibin Gu, 2019. "Spatial Accessibility to Hospitals Based on Web Mapping API: An Empirical Study in Kaifeng, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, February.
    17. Jingming Liu & Xianhui Hou & Chuyu Xia & Xiang Kang & Yujun Zhou, 2021. "Examining the Spatial Coordination between Metrorail Accessibility and Urban Spatial Form in the Context of Big Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Jamie E L Spinney & Hugh Millward, 2013. "Investigating Travel Thresholds for Sports and Recreation Activities," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(3), pages 474-488, June.
    19. Michael Lechner & Paul Downward, 2017. "Heterogeneous sports participation and labour market outcomes in England," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 335-348, January.
    20. Wang, Jianying & Dong, Lei & Cheng, Ximeng & Yang, Weijun & Liu, Yu, 2019. "An extended exploration and preferential return model for human mobility simulation at individual and collective levels," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 534(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5910-:d:279850. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.