Notice bibliographique
Résumé
How inclusive are public spaces for LGBTQ+ peoples and what can be made visible through using an intersectional approach in urban planning and landscape architecture processes? At the UN Habitat III meeting in Quito 2016, the UN failed to recognize LGBTQ+ peoples in their Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015) as 17 countries voted against it. Liljefors (2016) points out the importance of inclusive policies on a global level as many planners work towards these on a local level, and therefore impacting who is included in the cities we build. \n \nThe objective of this thesis was to emphasize the importance of intersectionality in urban planning processes, with a focus on LGBTQ+ aspects. The study object of this thesis was the LGBTQ+ space of Jim Deva Plaza, Vancouver. The aim was to create awareness among urban planners and landscape architects of how to challenge structures in order to create more inclusive cities. Specifically, this thesis explored the following research question: “What can we learn from taking an intersectional approach to studying LGBTQ+ representation in the planning process, design and use of public spaces?” \n \nThrough analyzing the process, design, use and experiences of Jim Deva Plaza and LGBTQ+ peoples experiences of public spaces through an intersectional lens, the main findings in this research can be summarized to: \n* Lack of pluralism and recognition of challenges in the planning process can lead toneglecting LGBTQ+ peoples and their needs (Winkle 2015; Doan 2015). \n* Lack of understanding the context and LGBTQ+ theirstory (Winkle 2015; Gieseking 2016) \n* There is a heightened need to take an intersectional approach to planning due to risksof gentrification and displacement of vulnerable groups (Gieseking 2016; Doan 2015b; Winkle2015). \n* Stereotypical illustrations of LGBTQ+ communities can maintain prejudices, particularlyif the underlying issues of improving safety (e.g., addressing the high levels ofdiscrimination and violence LGBTQ+ people’s experience (Abramovich 2016)), such as byenforcing policies. \n* For people working with urban development and public spaces to have access toinformation and tools about LGBTQ+ aspects in planning, the need for future researchin this area is of big importance. Examples on future research: \n- The interconnections between LGBTQ+ public spaces and gentrification, polarization and homelessness. \n- Studying how queer spaces are dependent on time and people (e.g., beyondLGBTQ+ designated spaces) \n- The role of place-making in queer public spaces \n \nUrban planners and landscape architects have an important role and responsibility in providing the spaces for LGBTQ+ peoples to have a voice in these processes. It is therefore important that they are equipped with the right education in order to facilitate inclusive spaces. The same goes for policies and framework that need to become more inclusive and anti-discriminating.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».