Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 303-312

  Hofmann, Mathias ^a,c   Westermann, Janneke R ^b   Kowarik, Ingo ^b   Van der Meer, Elke ^c  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Expert lay people comparison; Naturalness; Preferences; Urban green space; Wasteland

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CANOPY ARCHITECTURE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; GREENSPACE; LANDSCAPE; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; NATURALNESS; PARK DESIGN; PERCEPTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; SPECIES RICHNESS; URBAN PLANNING; WASTELAND;

EID: 84863782603     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 1987, 52:317-332.
2. Alvey A.A. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2006, 5:195-201.
3. Amerigo M., Aragones J.I. A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17:47-57.
4. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape 1996, Wiley, London.
5. Arnberger A. Recreation use of urban forests: an inter-area comparison. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2006, 4:135-144.
6. Bauer N., Hunziker M. Umfrage über Wahrnehmung von Waldwildnis in der Schweiz. Wald und Holz 2004, 85:38-40.
7. Berlyne D.E. Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics 1970, 8:279-286.
8. Berto R. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2005, 25:249-259.
9. Bixler R.D., Floyd M.F. Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior 1997, 29:443-467.
10. Bjerke T., Østdahl T., Thrane C., Strumse E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2006, 5:35-44.
11. Bonaiuto M., Aiello A., Perugini M., Bonnes M., Ercolani A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1999, 19:331-352.
12. Bonaiuto M., Fornara F., Bonnes M. Perceived residential environment quality in middle- and low-extension Italian cities. European Review of Applied Psychology 2006, 56:23-34.
13. Bonnes M., Uzzell D., Carrus G., Kelay T. Inhabitants' and experts' assessments of environmental quality for urban sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63:59-78.
14. Borg I., Groenen P.J.F. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications 2005, Springer, New York.
15. Bromme R., Rambow R. Man sieht nur, was man weiß. Der Architekt 1995, 451-453.
16. Caula S., Hvenegaard G., Marty P. The influence of bird information, attitudes, and demographics on public preferences toward urban green spaces: the case of Montpellier, France. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2009, 8:117-128.
17. Cohen D.A., McKenzie T.L., Sehgal A., Williamson S., Golinelli D., Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health 2007, 97:509-514.
18. de Sousa C.A. Turning brownfields into green space in the city of Toronto. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 62:181-198.
19. Doick K.J., Sellers G., Castan-Broto V., Silverthorne T. Understanding success in the context of brownfield greening projects: the requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2009, 8:163-178.
20. Dunstan F., Weaver N., Araya R., Bell T., Lannon S., Lewis G., Patterson J., Thomas H., Jones P., Palmer S. An observation tool to assist with the assessment of urban residential environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2005, 25:293-305.
21. Escobedo F.J., Kroeger T., Wagner J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution 2011, 159:2078-2087.
22. Fenton D.M. Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response. Australian Journal of Psychology 1985, 37:325-339.
23. Fischer M.A., Shrout P.E. Children's liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38:373-393.
24. Fuller R., Irvine K., Devine-Wright P., Warren P., Gaston K. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters 2007, 3:390-394.
25. Gabriel K.M.A., Endlicher W.R. Urban and rural mortality rates during heat waves in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany. Environmental Pollution 2011, 159:2044-2050.
26. Gobster P.H., Westphal L.M. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 68:147-165.
27. Gundersen V., Frivold L. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2008, 7:241-258.
28. Gyllin M., Grahn P. A semantic model for assessing the experience of urban biodiversity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2005, 3:149-161.
29. Hägerhäll C.M. Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2000, 20:83-90.
30. Hamada S., Ohta T. Seasonal variations in the cooling effect of urban green areas on surrounding urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2010, 9:15-24.
31. Hartig T., Staats H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2006, 26:215-226.
32. Hershberger R.G., Cass R.C. The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment. Man-Environment Systems 1973, 3:371-372.
33. Herzog T.R., Chen H.C., Primeau J.S. Perception of the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2002, 22:295-306.
34. Herzog T.R., Leverich O.L. Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior 2003, 35:459-477.
35. Im S. Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: an exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior 1984, 16:235-262.
36. Jain A.K., Murty M.N., Flynn P.J. Data clustering: a review. ACM Computing Surveys 1999, 31:264-323.
37. Jorgensen A., Gobster P.H. Shades of green: measuring the ecology of urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nature and Culture 2010, 5:338-363.
38. Jorgensen A., Hitchmough J., Calvert T. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 60:135-150.
39. Jorgensen A., Hitchmough J., Dunnett N. Woodland as a setting for housing-appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 79:273-287.
40. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, University Press, Cambridge.
41. Kowarik I., Langer A. Natur-Park Südgelände: linking conservation and recreation in an abandoned rail yard in Berlin. Wild Urban Woodlands. New Perspectives for Urban Forestry 2005, 287-299. Springer, Berlin. I. Kowarik, S. Körner (Eds.).
42. Kowarik I. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution 2011, 159:1974-1983.
43. Kuo F.E., Bacaicoa M., Sullivan W.C. Transforming inner-city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior 1998, 30:28-59.
44. Lafortezza R., Carrus G., Sanesi G., Davies C. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2009, 8:97-108.
45. Lafortezza R., Corry R.C., Sanesi G., Brown R.D. Visual preference and ecological assessments for designed alternative brownfield rehabilitations. Journal of Environmental Management 2008, 89:257-269.
46. Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 2004, 95:489-508.
47. Lee T. Schema theory and the role of socio-spatial schemata in environmental psychology. Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues 2003, 27-61. Ashgate, Aldershot. M. Bonnes, T. Lee, M. Bonaiuto (Eds.).
48. Lindemann-Matthies P., Bose E. Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 79:298-307.
49. Mason J., Moorman C., Hess G., Sinclair K. Designing suburban greenways to provide habitat for forest-breeding birds. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80:153-164.
50. McKeown B., Thomas D. Q Methodology 1988, Sage, Newbury Park.
51. Mitchell R., Popham F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 2008, 372:1655-1660.
52. Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 1995, 14:161-170.
53. Nielsen A.B., Jensen R.B. Some visual aspects of planting design and silviculture across contemporary forest management paradigms - perspectives for urban afforestation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2007, 6:143-158.
54. Orians G.H. An evolutionary perspective on aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 2001, 2:25-29.
55. Osgood C.E., Suci G., Tannenbaum P. The Measurement of Meaning 1957, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
56. özgüner H., Kendle A.D. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 74:139-157.
57. Rautalin M., Uusitalo J., Pukkala T. Estimation of tree stand characteristics through computer visualisation. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 53:85-94.
58. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2008, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
59. Real E., Arce C., Sabucedo J.M. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2000, 20:355-373.
60. Rosenberg S., Kim M. The method of sorting as a data-gathering procedure in multivariate research. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1975, 10:489-502.
61. Sammon J.W. A nonlinear mapping for data structure analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computers 1969, C-18:401-409.
62. Shafer E.L., Hamilton J.F., Schmidt E.A. Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1969, 1:1-19.
63. Spini D. Multidimensional scaling: a technique for the quantitative analysis of the common field of social representations. European Review of Applied Psychology 2002, 52:231-240.
64. Stamps A.E. Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1990, 71:907-913.
65. Stamps A.E. Mystery of environmental mystery: effects of light, occlusion, and depth of view. Environment and Behavior 2007, 39:165-197.
66. Trent R.B., Neumann E., Kvashny A. Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning 1987, 14:225-235.
67. Tyrväinen L., Pauleit S., Seeland K., Vries S. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. Urban Forests and Trees 2005, 81-114. Springer, Berlin. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
68. Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kazmierszak A., Niemelä J., et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 81:167-178.
69. Tzoulas K., James P. Peoples' use of, and concerns about, green space networks: a case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2010, 9:121-128.
70. Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, 224:420-421.
71. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2010. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision: Highlights. New York.
72. van den Berg A.E., Vlek C.A.J., Coeterier J.F. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998, 18:141-157.
73. van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63:79-96.
74. van Herzele A., de Clercq E.M., Wiedemann T. Strategic planning for new woodlands in the urban periphery: through the lens of social inclusiveness. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2005, 3:177-188.
75. Venables W.N., Ripley B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S 2002, Springer, New York.
76. Ward J.H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1963, 58:236-244.
77. Yli-Pelkonen V., Kohl J. The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2005, 1:3-14.