English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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