Observational analysis uncovers accessibility disparities in Lanzhou, indicating urban governance requires reform for equity improvement.
Whether young people can equitably access everyday living and shopping facilities has become a key indicator of fairness in youth-friendly cities. However, existing research has paid limited attention to young people’s daily activity spheres, particularly to how linear urban forms may intensify core–periphery disparities in accessibility. Using Lanzhou, a typical Chinese strip city, as a case study, this paper develops a multidimensional evaluation framework integrating coverage, richness, and sharing. Drawing on 1650 youth questionnaires and detailed geospatial data, it applies a preference-based behavioural accessibility model in conjunction with the Gini coefficient to examine the spatial equity of daily shopping facilities. Results indicate that Lanzhou’s facilities exhibit a pattern of central concentration and peripheral scarcity. Chengguan and Anning districts form highly accessible cores, supported by dense commercial areas and university resources. In contrast, Qilihe and Xigu suffer from pronounced facility deficits, with walking coverage rates of five to fifteen minutes below 70%. Accessibility patterns reveal coexisting contradictions of “high supply but low access” and “low supply with difficult access”. Equity metrics indicate a moderate overall level (Gini = 0.272), yet notable inter-district disparities persist, with peripheral areas imposing higher access costs on young residents. The study confirms a persistent spatial dilemma whereby the quantity of facilities does not guarantee equitable access. It argues that urban governance should shift from equal allocation towards demand-responsive and perceived-equity approaches, thereby extending daily shopping opportunities to peripheral zones. Enhancing neighbourhood-scale connectivity through pedestrian and cycling networks would improve both practical usability and spatial fairness for young urban populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: