{"title":"Socio-economic disparities in greenspace quality: insights from the city of Melbourne","authors":"A. Ghanem, R. Edirisinghe","doi":"10.1108/sasbe-11-2022-0247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper takes a prudent approach to assessing the quality of greenspace in low- and high socio-economic status (SES) settings. Socio-economic data from deprivation indexes were used to systematically define low- and high-SES suburbs. A Geographical Information System (GIS) observation of greenspaces was used to score spaces according to a scoring criterion contingent on six quality facets. Statistics were then synthesised, producing a Cohen effect score highlighting disparities in each criterion between the two SES groups.Design/methodology/approachAs the phenomena of locational prejudice and meritocratic inequality continue to garner global attention, this paper extrapolates this to a world-renown metropolis, Melbourne. This paper endeavours to provide invaluable insights into the environmental injustice paradigm within greenspace and its respective quality.FindingsConclusive results affirmed a concerning disparity in the quality of greenspace between Melbourne's low- and high-SES settings. Cohen's effect size found that on average, there was a “medium” distinction between the spaces, whilst an individual focus on the quality facets concluded diverse findings.Research limitations/implicationsThe core of study adopted a meticulous virtual assessment to critique the quality of selected greenspaces opposed to an in-person-real world assessment which could garner more nuanced findings.Originality/valueExisting literature on Melbourne has prioritised distribution, proximity and accessibility domains when assessing inequitable greenspace and, consequently, has catalysed a research gap in greenspace quality. This is also one of the first papers to provide insight into the “Plan Melbourne” policy regarding urban regeneration and ameliorating public open spaces.","PeriodicalId":45779,"journal":{"name":"Smart and Sustainable Built Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Smart and Sustainable Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-11-2022-0247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PurposeThis paper takes a prudent approach to assessing the quality of greenspace in low- and high socio-economic status (SES) settings. Socio-economic data from deprivation indexes were used to systematically define low- and high-SES suburbs. A Geographical Information System (GIS) observation of greenspaces was used to score spaces according to a scoring criterion contingent on six quality facets. Statistics were then synthesised, producing a Cohen effect score highlighting disparities in each criterion between the two SES groups.Design/methodology/approachAs the phenomena of locational prejudice and meritocratic inequality continue to garner global attention, this paper extrapolates this to a world-renown metropolis, Melbourne. This paper endeavours to provide invaluable insights into the environmental injustice paradigm within greenspace and its respective quality.FindingsConclusive results affirmed a concerning disparity in the quality of greenspace between Melbourne's low- and high-SES settings. Cohen's effect size found that on average, there was a “medium” distinction between the spaces, whilst an individual focus on the quality facets concluded diverse findings.Research limitations/implicationsThe core of study adopted a meticulous virtual assessment to critique the quality of selected greenspaces opposed to an in-person-real world assessment which could garner more nuanced findings.Originality/valueExisting literature on Melbourne has prioritised distribution, proximity and accessibility domains when assessing inequitable greenspace and, consequently, has catalysed a research gap in greenspace quality. This is also one of the first papers to provide insight into the “Plan Melbourne” policy regarding urban regeneration and ameliorating public open spaces.