Equalization Measurement and Optimization of the Public Cultural Facilities Distribution in Tianjin Central Area

Abstract

In the context of urban stock renewal, the spatial arrangement of public cultural facilities (PCFs) should follow the principles of equity and efficiency to ensure that residents have equitable access to and quality of public cultural services. The aim of this article is to study the spatial distribution of PCFs and the coupling of supply and demand of cultural resources in Tianjin’s central area. By building a supply-demand coupling coordination model and other methods, the equalization of the spatial distribution of PCFs is measured from various perspectives, and the results suggest that more than half of the sub-districts are in a situation of supply and demand imbalance. To fulfill the purpose of meeting residents’ actual needs, balancing supply and demand for cultural resources, and coordinating the increase in stock, these sub-districts’ facilities enter the step of optimization. Depending on the circumstances, the quality and scale of these facilities are optimized, or new facility points are added based on the maximized coverage model. The optimization is shown to be beneficial in terms of updating design and coverage quantity using two real-world cases. Finally, the coverage of facilities in the study area is maximized, facility utilization is made more efficient, and residents’ needs for public cultural services are satisfied.

Spatial Pattern and Drivers of China’s Public Cultural Facilities between 2012 and 2020 Based on POI and Statistical Data

“…At the urban scale, Wang, Nawa, Macintyre, and Ghasemi et al analyzed the spatial inequality of public cultural facilities in Xi'an, Tshwane, Glasgow, and Tehran based on statistical data, noting that Xi'an and Tehran have prominent spatial inequality characteristics regarding public cultural facilities [6,20]; Tshwane showed great inequality between white and black and urban and rural public cultural facilities [21]; Glasgow has a higher density of museums and art galleries in affluent neighborhoods, while the libraries and cinemas show no clear pattern of deprivation [22]. Zhao, He, and Zhang et al analyzed the spatial distribution of public cultural facilities in Zhengzhou, Beijing, and Tianjin based on POI data and pointed out that the aggregation characteristics of different types of public cultural facilities differed and were closely related to urban development characteristics [3,23,24]. Działek and Ayatac et al analyzed the spatial characteristics of art museums and libraries in Krakow and Istanbul based on statistical data, holding that art museums in Krakow are highly concentrated in the historical and cultural areas of the city [25], while the libraries in Istanbul show a clear center-periphery structure [26].…”

Study on the Demand and Supply of Cultural Space for Different Groups of People from the Perspective of Sustainable Community Development: A Case Study from the Hanzhong Section of the Hanjiang River Basin, China

“…While these studies have initially built up the basic idea of the study of CS demand and supply, there are still some deficiencies. As far as the study object is concerned, most studies available have focused more on a certain type of CS, such as cultural heritage space [26], cultural facilities space [21,27], and cultural industries space [28,29], while ignoring the systematic nature of CS, and fewer studies have carried out a systematic evaluation of the whole constituted by each type of CS, thus affecting the comprehensiveness of the research on the supply of CS. For the demand of the study, most of the studies only analyze the demand of one group of people, with less consideration for the differences in the demand preferences of different groups; in fact, CS is different from other public services, and the service targets include residents, as well as employees and tourists.…”