In terms of Lees et al.’s (2010) definition, gentrification is a process of improving the character of a neighbourhood through the influx of higher classes and businesses. Due to the correlation between counter urbanization and gentrification, movement from urban to natural rustic communities in center course gradually become common (Phillips, 2009).  In this process, green/environmental gentrification can be seen as a considerably important link as it has a close relationship with social inequality. A chapter, “New directions in urban environmental/green gentrification research”, from Pearsall’s (2018) “Handbook of gentrification studies” book fully analyses the situation of gentrification and provides critical insights on how to make gentrification more reasonable and let relevant policies benefit more people. Differently, the article “‘We're not in the business of housing:’ Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects” (Rigolona A. and Némethb J., 2018) aim to discuss more specific topic that why nonprofitization cannot widely benefit people. The two texts have been chosen because the two texts academically discussed environmental gentrification from different angles. Although both texts include reliable content and professional information, this essay will present the opinion that the article is more appropriate to be a source of reference for undergraduate students (especially the international students) rather than book, because it has concise and more focused content, more normal academic words and higher authority. The two texts will be critically compared and reviewed in this essay and their advantages and disadvantages are going to be analysed. Firstly, two brief summaries of the texts will be provided. Secondly, the practicability of organizations of the texts will be assessed to examine whether they can be easily used by undergraduate students. Finally, the authority and reliability of the texts will be estimated.

In the course of educational expansion, educational level has been decreased in many European countries recently. In Germany, until the early 1990s, although more men than women graduated from upper secondary education, more women than men currently achieve an upper secondary qualification (German Federal Statistical Office 2009). In David (2012) research, from a feminist perspective, first, want to develop interest in innovative approaches to education, through pedagogical research, to contribute to debates within higher education about developing teaching and learning methods. Second, Willetts (2011) launched an attack on feminist research and practices around innovative forms of social inclusion through higher education. Compare with Walter (2011) and David (2012), they both discuss the relationship between gender equality and higher education. Today, although women got more qualification of the entrance of universities, they more choose the area of arts and social lives. The difference of them are Walter (2011) from a feminist perspective to discuss the relationship, and David (2012) from an objective way to discuss. The relationship between gender and higher education. In Walter (2011) opinion, the definition of social inclusion is “how to include disadvantaged and previously excluded social groups, such as women and those from working-class family backgrounds, in higher education policies, pedagogies and practices”. At her time, David Willetts, Minister for Higher Education in the

Coalition government reignited debate about gender and higher education questions in the media (GEA, 2011). In the opinion of Willetts (2011), ‘Feminism trumps egalitarianism’(GEA,2011). In other words, he thought the gender equality in fact is the feminism, and feminism is the reason for social mobility had stalled and working-class men always cannot find a job. In David (2012) essay, when men and women face to the main subject of higher education, men prefer to choose engineering and natural science, rather than women like social science and arts (Smyth and Steinmetz 2008). This essay will compare two texts and find the same and different part. Firstly, compare different aims of Willetts (2011) and David (2012) to choose to write their essay. Secondly, compare two aspect of people (one is objective and another is feminism). Thirdly, find different gender how to choose their subject and work.