Exploring the Equity and Spatial Evidence of Educational Facilities in Hangzhou, China

Abstract

Inequity in education is a serious social problem in developing countries. This study aims to explore an integrated model and evaluate the spatial equity of primary school facilities based on GIS technology in terms of three perspectives including accessibility, facility quality and supply–demand relationship. In this study, an integrated equity evaluation was established. Then an ideal spatial distribution of schools was described, and the equity of primary schools in Hangzhou’s urban central area was measured. Meanwhile, the relationships among the equity of primary schools and urban population change, urban land expansion, housing price distribution and urban spatial structure were analyzed. The results revealed the spatial inequity of primary schools in Hangzhou. Specifically, (1) the high-quality educational outcome significantly related to student–teacher ratio, per capita financial expenditure for education, and land cost. (2) The accessibility of primary schools did not match the population suburbanization. (3) Inequality in the quality of education worsened social stratification since the quality of primary schools affected regional housing prices. (4) The population flow based on the quality of educational facilities influenced the supply–demand relationship of educational facilities. Our study is believed to deepen the understanding of spatial equity in education based on the urban spatial structure in urban planning. It offers new insights for educational facility planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

References

  1. Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis,16(4), 375–390.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benson, M., Bridge, G., & Wilson, D. (2015). School choice in London and Paris: A comparison of middle-class strategies. Social Policy & Administration,49(1), 24–43.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chang, H. S., & Liao, C. H. (2011). Exploring an integrated method for measuring the relative spatial equity in public facilities in the context of urban parks. Cities,28(5), 361–371.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng, J., Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Kapoen, L. (2013). Understanding urban networks: Comparing a node-, a density-and an accessibility-based view. Cities,31, 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, B. (2008). Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in Society,28(1), 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dadashpoor, H., & Rostami, F. (2017). Measuring spatial proportionality between service availability, accessibility and mobility: Empirical evidence using spatial equity approach in Iran. Journal of Transport Geography,65, 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Earthman, G. I. (2017). The relationship between school building condition and student achievement: A critical examination of the literature. Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership,4(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fan, P., Xu, L., Yue, W., & Chen, J. (2017). Accessibility of public urban green space in an urban periphery: The case of Shanghai. Landscape and Urban Planning,165, 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Feng, H., & Lu, M. (2013). School quality and housing prices: Empirical evidence from a natural experiment in Shanghai. China. Journal of Housing Economics,22(4), 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ghiyasvandian, S., Nikbakht-Nasrabadi, A., Mohammadpour, A., Abbasi, M., & Javadi, M. (2014). Iranian nursing students’ perspectives of educational equity. Acta Medica Iranica,52, 935–942.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gibbons, S., & Machin, S. (2006). Paying for primary schools: Admission constraints, school popularity or congestion? The Economic Journal,116(510), C77–C92.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gobster, P. H. (1995). Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape & Urban Planning,33(1), 401–413.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hewko, J., Smoyertomic, K. E., & Hodgson, M. J. (2002). Measuring neighbourhood spatial accessibility to urban amenities: Does aggregation error matter? Environment & Planning A,34(7), 1185–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hochstenbach, C., & Musterd, S. (2016). Gentrification and the suburbanization of poverty: Changing urban geographies through boom and bust periods. Urban Geography,17(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hu, L., He, S., Luo, Y., Su, S., Xin, J., & Weng, M. (2020). A social-media-based approach to assessing the effectiveness of equitable housing policy in mitigating education accessibility induced social inequalities in Shanghai, China. Land Use Policy,94, 104513.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jian, C., Shengtian, Y., & Hongwei, L. (2013). Research on geographical environment unit division based on the method of natural breaks (Jenks). ISPRS: International Archives of the Photogrammetry. Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,XL-4/W3, 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kelly, A. (2013). Measuring ‘equity’ and ‘equitability’ in school effectiveness research. British Educational Research Journal,38(6), 977–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kunzmann, K. R. (1998). Planning for spatial equity in Europe. International Planning Studies,3(1), 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  19. OECD (2017). The funding of school education: connecting resources and Learning. Available online at https://www.oecd.org/governance/the-funding-of-school-education-9789264276147-en.htm.

  20. Opoku, A., & Mill, S. A. (2017). Is standardized schools the answer to the shortage of primary school places in the UK? The Business and Management Review,4(8), 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Partanen, A. (2011). What Americans keep ignoring about Finland’s school success. The Atlantic,12, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Perry, L. (2009). Characteristics of equitable systems of education: A cross-national analysis. European Education,41(1), 79–100.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape & Urban Planning,178, 156–169.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rodríguez, C., Amador, A., & Tarango, B. A. (2016). Mapping educational equity and reform policy in the borderlands: LatCrit spatial analysis of grade retention. Equity & Excellence in Education,49(2), 228–240.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rodriguez, R. J., & Elbaum, B. (2014). The role of student–teacher ratio in parents’ perceptions of schools’ engagement efforts. The Journal of Educational Research,107(1), 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rosa, D. L. (2014). Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators,42(7), 122–134.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Taleai, M., Sliuzasb, R., & Flackeb, J. (2014). An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cites,40, 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Talen, E. (1997). The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography,18(6), 521–541.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment & Planning A,30(4), 595–613.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Torraco, R. (2018). Economic inequality, educational inequity, and reduced career opportunity: A self-perpetuating cycle? New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development,30(1), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tsou, K. W., Hung, Y. T., & Chang, Y. L. (2005). An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities,22(6), 424–435.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wen, H., Xiao, Y., Hui, E. C., & Zhang, L. (2018). Education quality, accessibility, and housing price: Does spatial heterogeneity exist in education capitalization? Habitat International,78, 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wood, E., Levinson, M., Postlethwaite, K., & Black, A. E. (2011). Equity matters. Report on a study commissioned by the EI Research Institute. Paris: Education International Research Institute.

  34. Wu, Y., Fan, P., Li, B., Ouyang, Z., Liu, Y., & You, H. (2017). The effectiveness of planning control on urban growth: Evidence from Hangzhou, China. Sustainability,9(5), 855.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wu, Y., Fan, P., & You, H. (2018). Spatial evolution of producer service sectors and its influencing factors in cities: A case study of Hangzhou, China. Sustainability,10(4), 975.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wu, Y., Zhang, T., Zhang, H., Pan, T., Ni, X., Grydehøj, A., et al. (2020). Factors influencing the ecological security of island cities: A neighborhood-scale study of Zhoushan Island, China. Sustainable Cities and Society,55, 102029.

    Google Scholar 

  37. You, H. (2016a). Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International,56, 176–180.

    Google Scholar 

  38. You, H. (2016b). Quantifying megacity growth in response to economic transition: A case of Shanghai, China. Habitat International,53, 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  39. You, H., & Yang, X. (2017). Urban expansion in 30 megacities of China: Categorizing the driving force profiles to inform the urbanization policy. Land Use Policy,68, 531–551.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ziblatt, D. (2008). Why some cities provide more public goods than others: A subnational comparison of the provision of public goods in German cities in 1912. Studies in Comparative International Development,43(3–4), 273–289.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51578507 and 71874151), the National Social Science Fund of China (16ZDA018), the Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (18YJA630134), the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LY18G030031).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heyuan You.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Y., Zheng, X., Sheng, L. et al. Exploring the Equity and Spatial Evidence of Educational Facilities in Hangzhou, China. Soc Indic Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02417-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spatial equity
  • Education facilities
  • Integrated equity evaluation framework
  • China