Ghanem, A and Edirisinghe, R (2024) Socio-economic disparities in greenspace quality: Insights from the city of Melbourne. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 13(2), pp. 309-329. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: This 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/approach: As 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. Findings: Conclusive 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/implications: The 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/value: Existing 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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | deprivation; greenspace; inequity; melbourne; quality; socio-economic status |
| Index terms: | deprivation, urban regeneration, information system, methodology, statistics, disparity, paradigm, inequality, critique, public open space, accessibility |
| Subjects: | urban design, education and knowledge transfer, inclusive design, post-disaster and reconstruction, research methods, information systems, social justice, sociology, evaluation and assessment methods, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Ethics |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here