評(píng)論
打印
The five-year, $2 million project is well under way, with 13 playgrounds overhauled since 2015.
為期五年、耗資200萬美元的該項(xiàng)目目前正在落實(shí)，自2015年以來，他們已經(jīng)對(duì)13個(gè)游樂場(chǎng)進(jìn)行了全面檢修。
Jones says property values are already going up around the parks,
據(jù)瓊斯透露，修繕帶動(dòng)了公園周邊房?jī)r(jià)的上漲，
and because each site has different equipment, people are visiting areas they otherwise wouldn't.
同時(shí)，由于每個(gè)地點(diǎn)的設(shè)施各不相同，居民們破天荒地開始交叉使用那些設(shè)施了。
"It forces you to go into a community," Jones says.
“這樣大家就不得不跟社區(qū)的其他人互動(dòng)了，”瓊斯說。
"It forces people to be one city."
“整個(gè)城市就變成了一個(gè)整體。”
In January, Acevedo-Garcia and her team published the latest edition of the Child Opportunity Index,
今年1月，Acevedo-Garcia和她的團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)布了最新一期的兒童機(jī)會(huì)指數(shù)報(bào)告，
an ambitious project that takes a deep look at 47,000 neighborhoods across the 100 largest U.S. metro areas,
這個(gè)項(xiàng)目非常龐大，報(bào)告深入考察了美國(guó)前100個(gè)大都會(huì)地區(qū)的4.7萬個(gè)社區(qū)，
scoring them from 1 to 100, where a higher number means more childhood opportunity based on 29 key measures.
根據(jù)29項(xiàng)關(guān)鍵指標(biāo)給它們打分，從1分到100分，數(shù)字越高意味著兒童能獲得的機(jī)會(huì)越多。
Acevedo-Garcia's data evaluating children's access focuses on how the next generation is faring.
Acevedo-Garcia這一數(shù)據(jù)，表面評(píng)測(cè)的是兒童能獲得的機(jī)會(huì)的大小，背后關(guān)注的則是整個(gè)下一代的成長(zhǎng)情況。
But children are, of course, a proxy for the community as a whole.
不過，兒童顯然也是整個(gè)社會(huì)的一個(gè)縮影。
The life expectancy of residents in neighborhoods with very low scores on her child-opportunity scale is 75 years, for example.
打個(gè)比方，兒童機(jī)會(huì)得分較低社區(qū)居民的預(yù)期壽命是75歲。
In very high-opportunity neighborhoods, it's 82.
兒童機(jī)會(huì)得分較高的社區(qū)居民預(yù)期壽命則能達(dá)到82歲。
TIME worked with Acevedo-Garcia to see if her neighborhood data
為考察Acevedo-Garcia的社區(qū)數(shù)據(jù)是否還能篩選出機(jī)會(huì)平等程度較高的大都會(huì)地區(qū)，
could point us to metropolitan areas with comparatively high levels of equal opportunity.
《時(shí)代周刊》與Acevedo-Garcia達(dá)成了一項(xiàng)合作。
That meant searching for areas with relatively small gaps between the highest- and lowest-ranked neighborhoods.
這就意味著我們要找的是得分最高和得分最低的兩個(gè)社區(qū)得分差距相對(duì)較小的地區(qū)。
This information is useful because, even when places have the same opportunity level overall,
這一信息其實(shí)是非常有用的，因?yàn)榧幢銉蓚€(gè)地方總體的機(jī)會(huì)得分相同，
actually living in those cities can be a very different experience.
兩個(gè)地方的不同城市的生活體驗(yàn)也有很大區(qū)別。
For example, Colorado Springs and Detroit both score an overall opportunity level of 55.
舉個(gè)例子，科羅拉多州的斯普林斯和（密歇根州的）底特律兩個(gè)城市總體的兒童機(jī)會(huì)得分都是55分。
But in Colorado Springs, a typical high-opportunity neighborhood scores an 87 and a typical low-opportunity one scores 24.
但在斯普林斯，一個(gè)具有代表性的機(jī)會(huì)較多的社區(qū)的得分是87分，具有代表性的機(jī)會(huì)較少的社區(qū)得分是24分。
That might seem like a huge gap.
你可能會(huì)覺得，兩個(gè)社區(qū)的機(jī)會(huì)差距好大！
But Detroit's high is 95 and its low is 2: a much less equal city.
但在底特律，前者得分可能高達(dá)95分，后者得分則可能低至2分：很明顯，這個(gè)城市的機(jī)會(huì)（要比斯普林斯的）不平等得多。
The problem was, when we found areas with small gaps between neighborhoods,
問題是，即便我們真的找到了社區(qū)之間機(jī)會(huì)差距很小的地區(qū)，
those cities tended to be racially homogenous.
這些地區(qū)往往也是種族比較統(tǒng)一的城市。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
