Defining and Exploring Public Space: Young People's Perspectives from Regent Park, Toronto
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Young people have not traditionally had a voice in urban planning. More often than not, they are incorporated into planning by either considering them as an implicit population or as part and parcel of planning for families (Knowles-Yanez, 2002; Freeman and Aitken-Rose, 2005; Frank, 2006). This is now recognized as one of the shortcomings of urban planning. This study seeks to address this gap within a specific context of urban revitalization and public space within a public housing development. \n\tThis study explored how young people between the ages of 10 and 16 living in Regent Park, Toronto define and value local public spaces. Their perspectives are particularly relevant at this time as their neighbourhood is in the process of a 15-year, multi-million dollar revitalization plan. This plan will bring about extensive physical and social changes to the neighbourhood. The key objectives of this study were to understand the perspectives of young people about their neighbourhood public space, to determine how young people’s perspectives match with revitalization plans and to adapt participatory research methods appropriate for young people. By using a participatory, multi-method approach, I set out to determine how young people understand public space and the extent to which this is incorporated into public housing revitalization. \n\tThe study findings show that the contemporary principles guiding public housing revitalization do not match how young people define and value public space. Findings reveal that young people have a broad definition of public space which encompasses public, quasi-public and private spaces. They also demonstrate that understanding public space involves both physical and social elements. This is incorporated into their ideas regarding revitalization. Young people placed more of an emphasis on social than physical solutions. Key to the findings are young people’s preferences for a neighbourhood network of walkways over through streets, maintaining community insularity, local landmarks and culture and their fears over losing these due to change brought about by new residents. Many public space elements were regarded as simultaneously positive and negative. They regard the revitalization process of their neighbourhood public spaces with mixed emotions, including trepidation, scepticism and hope. In this way, study findings add to the existing literature on young people and urban planning. Young people have a distinctive way of experiencing the urban environment and when asked in an appropriate manner, will share revealing insights that would not necessarily have been thought of by adults (Hart, 1997). \n\tThe study recommendations build upon the existing literature on the participation of young people in urban planning. This study shows that there is a need for planners to work alongside local community agencies and organizations already involved with young people. There is also a need to reconsider how planners address the issues of equity and public engagement. Young people do not have a political voice. For this reason, it is important for planners to consider the principles of equity and advocacy in a manner that embraces strategies for planning with multiple publics. Planners need to be educated and made aware of the different methods to appropriately engage young people. This includes adapting participatory techniques, determining agents of community access and self-reflexivity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,024 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».