Visualising spatial equity of park-access for the elderly from a multidimensional perspective in Yangzhou, China

ABSTRACT

Urban parks provide critical ecosystem services and satisfy residents’ recreational needs. As the population ages, whether the elderly can enjoy park resources equally has become an important issue in spatial justice research. However, most research on park equity is based on accessibility evaluation at spatial scales. Insufficient attention has been paid to selectivity and convenience in accessing parks for the elderly, as well as the importance of their perceptions and preferences in park-selection decision-making. Thus, this study constructed a multidimensional model to assess park equity for the elderly that included accessibility (Ai), proximity (Pi), quality (Qi), and diversity (Di). Our analysis of Yangzhou, China, revealed the following: (1) In Yangzhou central districts, only 21.46% of the elderly in the community could have a high level of park access, while entering parks was difficult or almost impossible for them in 28.34% of the communities. (2) The demographic distribution of the elderly was complete mismatched with all four assessment dimensions, among which accessibility was the most unequal. (3) The number and types of facilities inside parks were the most important considerations for the elderly when choosing parks, and the comfort level of parks had the most influence on their decision-making. The research results aim to make targeted recommendations to ameliorate inequalities in park access for the elderly and contribute to the construction of “age-friendly” cities.

KEYWORDS:

• Elderly
• spatial equity
• urban park
• multidimensional evaluation
• accessibility
• preference

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate everyone for their enthusiastic help during the writing process. We thank the corresponding author for his generous support of this study. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).