[雙語翻譯]城市公園外文翻譯--城市公園中的社會互動--激發(fā)社會凝聚力？

1、7000 英文單詞， 英文單詞，3.7 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 1.2 萬字 萬字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Peters K , Elands B , Buijs A , et al. Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion?[J]. Urban Forestry Nature;Non-Western immigrants; Recreati

2、onal useIntroductionUrban parks as a panacea for inter-ethnic tensions?Some 11% of the Dutch population consists of non-Western migrants, mainly Turks, Moroccans and people from Suriname and the Dutch Antilles. Non-Weste

3、rn migrants also form a significant share of the population in other western European countries (Dumont and Lema??tre, 2005). Especially big cities accommodate a variety of immigrant groups. For example, about 35% of the

4、 population of Amsterdam originates from non-Western countries, and this percentage is still growing (CBS, 2007).Since the 1990s, tensions between ethnic groups and native Dutch people have increased. This has led to a s

5、hift in policy orientation. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, the dominant view is that integration processes and policies have fundamentally failed and that the social cohesion of Dutch society is endangered (B

6、ruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007). Both researchers and policy makers are trying to deal with the increased tensions and argue that inter-ethnic encounters can serve as a way to do so (Blokland, 2003; RMO, 2005). In the Net

7、herlands, preserving or increasing a social mix has proven to be a successful strategy to combat social segregation and strengthen social cohesion (Uiter- mark, 2003). The Dutch government is therefore trying to stimulat

8、e interactions 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

9、communities can visit them, meet other people and enjoy the area, while remaining anonymous in the world of strangers (see e.g. Lofland, 1973; Sennett, 1990). However, prior research has shown that this applies more to u

10、rban than to 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 and behavioural codes are key factors that discourage minor

11、ity ethnic communities from using those spaces (Morris, 2003). In addition, many empirical studies (e.g. McDonald and McAvoy, 1997; Gobster, 1998) have found strong evidence for the presence and the relevance of discrimi

12、nation.Nevertheless, interactions do take place and civil inattention can be broken. An external stimulus can provide a linkage between strangers that leads to social interaction; this is called triangulation (Lofland, 1

13、998). In a public space, the choice and arrangement of the various elements in relation to each other can set the triangulation process in motion. The presence of an event or amenity can draw strangers together. Interact

14、ions can also be created by people who enjoy making contact with others in public spaces trying to pass the time by having a chat, sharing an unexpected experience, getting some information on a topic of interest or bask

15、ing in the momentary glow of ‘fellow feeling’ (Lofland, 1998, p. 39).Thus, public spaces can facilitate interactions if those spaces are open and accessible and when civil inattention can be breached. Through triangulati

16、on, external stimuli can invoke such interactions. Besides, the use of public spaces involves seeing and meeting people, which leads to more familiarity with each other (cf. Blokland, 2003). Finally, using public spaces

17、and, more specifically, having interactions can be a way of creating social cohesion because interactions stimulate a feeling of being at home.Urban parks facilitate social cohesion through place attachmentSocial capital

18、 refers to relations between people, not to relations between people and places. However, these latter relations are important for gaining an insight into social cohesion. There are several related concepts discussed in

19、the literature that describe human–environment interaction through the subjective experience of place. Examples include place identity, place attachment and sense of place (Williams and Vaske, 2003; Jorgensen and Stedman

20、, 2006). The diversity of place concept likely reflects the multidimensionality of the construct, which researchers have described in emotional, cognitive and behavioural terms (Low and Altman, 1992). Especially place at

21、tachment – which can be described as a positive emotional bond that develops between groups or individuals and their environment (Korpela, 1989; Williams and Vaske, 2003) – seems to be related to social cohesion. For exa

22、mple, research in a residential neighbourhood in the UK showed that the level of place attachment is positively correlated with the level of social cohesion (Forrest and Kearns, 2001).In short, by using urban parks peopl

23、e connect to certain places and to the other people who use those places. This can lead to social cohesion because it promotes feelings of comfort. Dines and Cattell (2006, p. ix) conclude that ‘‘commitment to the local

24、area and its people often influenced the use and experience of public open spaces, and so too were positive perceptions of spaces and the valued opportunities they afforded for casual social encounters’’. Also De Haan (2

25、005) shows that the appropriation of public places can lead to more attachment to these places and more possibilities to make contact, and thus to more social cohesion.We thus concluded that two indicators for social coh

26、esion are relevant, namely social interaction and place attachment. By using urban parks, visitors connect with the area and interact with other people who use the same area. Both dimensions potentially contribute to soc