Greenspace to Meet People’s Demand: A Case Study of Beijing in 2005 and 2015
Urban greenspace provides essential benefits and often depends on its distribution and spatial relationship with residents. Many cities set ambitious goals to increase the coverage of greenspace. In addition, to increase the total amount of greenspace, spatial patterns of greenspace supply and deman...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/78da0681ceed4c3e8b5de481bd27969a |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Urban greenspace provides essential benefits and often depends on its distribution and spatial relationship with residents. Many cities set ambitious goals to increase the coverage of greenspace. In addition, to increase the total amount of greenspace, spatial patterns of greenspace supply and demand also need to be taken into account to make sure its ecosystem services can reach the residents. While previous research has examined greenspace distribution, its association with various ecosystem services, and its spatial relationship with residents’ socioeconomic characteristics, relatively few studies have considered the spatial pattern of greenspace demand to assess its supply change over time. To fill this gap, we evaluated the greenspace change of Beijing between 2005 and 2015 using 2.5 m and 0.5 m high resolution remote sensing images. We first identified all of the greenspace changes, then evaluated the improvement of greenspace that was accessible to residents, and finally, we examined whether such improvement met different levels of demand estimated by neighborhood population, age structure, and economic status. The results showed a net increase of 1472 ha (7.8%) from 2005 to 2015. On average, percent greenspace within 500 m of the neighborhood boundary increased from 21% to 24%. Areas with low greenspace supply had a significantly higher increase. The standard deviation reduced from 8% to 7%, which indicated a smaller disparity of accessible greenspace. However, results showed that greenspace increase had little variation among neighborhoods with different demand levels. Our findings indicated that the greening efforts improved spatial distribution and reduced inequality in accessibility but failed to address different demand levels among neighborhoods. Furthermore, we identified neighborhoods with low supply/high demand and that lost greenspace between 2005–2015. These neighborhoods need to be given attention in future greening projects. |
|---|