Abstract
During the rapid urbanization process, the unequal distribution of green spaces (GS) has become a prominent topic in academic discussions due to its implications for social justice. Nonetheless, the equity of GS availability among different types of residential neighborhoods remains unclear, posing a challenge to achieving environmental justice in urban greening practices. This study, taking Shenzhen as a case study, examines the equity of GS availability between urban villages (UV) and residential quarters (RQ), two common residential neighborhood types in Chinese cities. We initially categorized both inner-GS and outer-GS based on their location inside or outside the boundary of residential neighborhoods and assessed GS availability at various accessible distances. Subsequently, the Theil index was applied to evaluate the inequity of GS availability, encompassing both the inequities within and between UV and RQ. Our findings reveal that UV exhibited higher GS inequity than RQ across all accessible distances. Furthermore, within UV, GS inequity decreased as the accessible distance increased, while the opposite trend was observed for RQ. Notably, although significant inequities existed in inner-GS availability between UV and RQ, outer-GS played a crucial role in mitigating this imbalance. These results provide valuable insights into GS equity across different residential neighborhood types and offer recommendations for enhancing/balancing the equity of GS availability in Shenzhen.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.