4.7 Article

A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: A novel methodology and case study application

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 137, Issue -, Pages 122-137

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.014

Keywords

Parks; Public space; Civic space; Equity analysis; Environmental justice; Urban sustainability

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation's (NSF) Central-Arizona Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (CAP-LTER) [CAP3: BCS-1026865]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1026865] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study introduces a novel, multidimensional methodology for empirically classifying urban parks according to their physical, land cover, and built features. An equity analysis compares the resulting park types to neighborhood social characteristics, statistically and spatially evaluating who has access to which kind of park. The process can be customized to the built, geographic, and social conditions and public policy goals of other cities, but is here applied to Phoenix, Arizona. The case study application provides a proof of concept, revealing the composition and distribution of various park types and demonstrating the utility and feasibility of the classification procedure and equity analysis. Results reveal five distinct park types in Phoenix - Suburban Amenity Parks, Green Mini Parks, Native Desert Preserves, Green Neighborhood Parks, and Urban Core Parks - each exhibiting a unique mix of physical, spatial, land cover, and built characteristics. The equity analysis highlights priority areas for park improvements, potential equity concerns, and phenomena for future research. A discussion section evaluates the results in light of previous research and suggests how findings can inform sustainable and just urban park policy, planning, and management. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available