[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]城市公園外文翻譯--城市公園中的社會(huì)互動(dòng)--激發(fā)社會(huì)凝聚力？（英文）

1、Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion?Karin Peters n, Birgit Elands, Arjen BuijsWageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlandsa r t i c l e i n f oKeywords:Green areasNa

2、tureNon-Western immigrantsRecreational usea b s t r a c tPeople from all ethnic backgrounds spend some of their leisure time in green areas. This study foundthat urban parks are more inclusive green places than non-urban

3、 green areas, and that urban parks canpromote social cohesion. The objective of the research was to establish the extent to which urban parksfacilitate social cohesion and how social interaction and place attachment can

4、contribute to suchcohesion. Quantitative research (a survey) and qualitative research (observations and interviews)carried out in five urban parks in the Netherlands revealed that there are many similarities in the wayst

5、hat ethnic groups use urban parks and in the meanings of such parks to these groups. Urban parks aresites where different ethnic groups mingle and where informal and cursory interactions can stimulatesocial cohesion. Fur

6、thermore, being involved and concerned with parks can facilitate attachment tothese places. Urban parks can provide a vital locality where everyday experiences are shared andnegotiated with a variety of people. The desig

7、n of a park, its location and people’s image of the park incombination with the cultural characteristics of various ethnic groups inform the opportunities forintercultural interactions.RMO, 2005). In the Netherlands, pre

8、serving or increasing a social mix has proven to be a successful strategy tocombat social segregation and strengthen social cohesion (Uiter- mark, 2003). The Dutch government is therefore trying to stimulate interactions

9、 by subsidizing activities that will facilitate inter-ethnic interactions in public spaces. Green areas may provide opportunities par excellence for exchange between ethnic communities, as members of these communities ca

10、n visit them, meet other people and enjoy the area, while remaining anon- ymous in the world of strangers (see e.g. Lofland, 1973; Sennett, 1990). However, prior research has shown that this applies more to urban than to

11、 non-urban green areas (Rishbeth, 2004; Buijs et al., 2009). The goal of the present research was to gain insight into whether urban parks can indeed facilitate social cohesion in urban neighbourhoods. We therefore took

12、a close look at how non- Western immigrants and native Dutch people use such parks and what their meaning is to these people. Because urban parks can only contribute to social cohesion between different social groups if

13、they are visited by members of all relevant groups, we explicitly focused on the use of such parks by both native and immigrant groups. After reporting on this quantitative comparison, we present the results of a more in

14、-depth study into the social processes through which social cohesion may be improved. Here, the focus is on social interactions and whether urban parks can serve as meeting points for different ethnic groups. Inspired by

15、 prior literature on social cohesion and the relation with the spatial characteristics of places, our overall focus was on three key concepts, namely social cohesion, social interaction and place attachment. It is genera

16、lly claimed that both socialARTICLE IN PRESSContents lists available at ScienceDirectjournal homepage: www.elsevier.de/ufugUrban Forestry in each town, each group comprised a minimum of 100 people. The overall response

17、rate was 47%. The majority of the immigrant respondents originate from Turkey (63%); of these respondents, 70% are first-generation and 30% are second-generation immigrants. There was a rather big difference in age betwe

18、en the native Dutch people and the ethnic people: on average, the former were at least 10 years older than the latter (Table 1). Regarding gender, native Dutch females were over-represented in the sample. Finally, the na

19、tive Dutch respondents had a higher education level than the ethnic respondents; however, the native Dutch population in general seems to have a higher education level than the immigrant population (Dagevos and Gijsberts

20、, 2007). We used both descriptive and multivariate analysis techni- ques. To analyse differences between groups, we used Eta2 and Cramer’s V. Both are measures of association that not only test for significant difference

21、s, but also indicate the proportion of total variability explained by the independent variable. Our second research project was of a qualitative nature, as the meaning of park use in the context of social cohesion cannot

22、 be fully understood by means of quantitative research only. The qualitative part involved an interpretive and naturalistic approachthat was characterized by the fact that researchers study things in their natural settin

23、gs and interpret the findings in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). The natural settings were two urban parks in Nijmegen, a medium- sized city that is linked to the city of Arnhem. Th

24、e parks were selected based on the following criteria: the parks should be visited by different ethnic groups and should be open and accessible, and thus not dominated by a specific group of visitors. The first park – Go

25、ffertpark (83 ha) – is the largest urban park in Nijmegen. It is visited by residents from nearby neighbourhoods and by people from other parts of Nijmegen. The other park – Thiemepark (app. 1 ha) – is a small, neighbour

26、hood park that almost exclusively attracts people from the immediate surround- ings. Both parks are visited by people of different ethnic backgrounds. We conducted both observations and interviews in order to study socia

27、l interaction and place attachment. We observed both activities and verbal and non-verbal behaviour (e.g. Low et al., 2005). The focus of the observations was on the following indicators: what social groups are present?

28、With whom and at which place (territoriality) do people spend their time in urban public spaces? Do people interact, and if so with whom do they interact? In total 26 observations were conducted at different times and on

29、 different days of the week. The average duration of each individual observation in the urban park was 2.5 hours. Special attention was paid to the presence of inter-ethnic interactions. The observations were recorded wi

30、th the help of a scheme comprising six aspects, namely gender, age, origin, number of people, activities and interaction. As well as recording this structural information, we took field notes on interactions and actions

31、that happened in the urban parks. We then made a content analysis of the field notes: the text was coded and on the basis of that themes were selected. The observations allowed us to map the use of the urban parks by peo

32、ple according to the above variables. However, because the meaning of overt behaviour in a certain setting cannot be interpreted by observation alone, we inter- viewed 40 local residents. Most of the interviews were carr

33、ied out in the parks and lasted between 20 and 90 min. Participating in this research were both native Dutch people and people from different ethnic backgrounds (i.e. Moroccans, Turks and people from Suriname and the Dut

34、ch Antilles). The age of the respon- dents ranged from 18 to 66 years; men and women participated equally. The interviews concerned two issues, that is, (i) motives, activities, intention of social interaction and the me

35、aning of behaviour and (ii) attitudes towards other ethnic groups.ResultsHere, we interweave conceptually the results of the quantita- tive and the qualitative study. Before discussing social interaction and place attach

36、ment, we first present some insights into the use and non-use of urban parks and the activities in which users participate.Use of urban parksWe first discuss the relative use of urban parks by comparing such parks with n

37、ature areas. To know of the existence of an urban park or a nature area is an essential condition for the use of it. The results of the quantitative survey show that in general urban parks are more widely known than natu

38、re areas, and that more native Dutch people than immigrants seem to know about the existence of nature areas and urban parks (Table 2). This, however, does not apply so much to the Turkish community: 86% of this communit

39、y knew about nature areas and urban parks,Table 1Socio-demographic characteristics of the research population in the quantitativesurvey.Ethnic people Native people TotalTotal (N) 300 318 618Age (mean) 37.5 50.8 44.2Gende