Are urban visitors' general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief?

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 872-882

  Arnberger, Arne ^a   Eder, Renate ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Green infrastructure; Green space; Restoration; Stated choice; Vienna; Visitor numbers

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; GREENSPACE; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; LITTER; SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN SOCIETY;

AUSTRIA; VIENNA;

EID: 84951860912     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.005     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Arnberger A., Eder R. The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: a discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54(7):891-908.
2. Arnberger A., Haider W., Eder R., Muhar A. Modelling visitor groups' intentions to displace from an urban trail: a combined stated preference and video monitoring approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2010, 53(6):809-825.
3. Arnberger A., Aikoh T., Eder R., Shoji Y., Mieno T. How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9:215-225.
4. Baum A., Paulus P.B. Crowding. Handbook of Environmental Psychology 1991, vol. 1:533-570. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida.
5. Bishop I.D., Ye W.-S., Karadaglis C. Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:115-123.
6. Bjerke T., Østdahl T., Thrane C., Strumse E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 5:35-44.
7. Bullock C. Application of Choice Experiments to Green Space in Dublin - An Economic Perspective. Green Space - Final report 2005, 27-31. http://www.ucd.ie/greensp/docs/final1.pdf (retrieved 31.5.12). C. Bullock (Ed.).
8. Bullock C. Valuing urban green space: hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51:15-35.
9. Carles J.L., Barrio I.L., de Lucio J.V. Sound influence on landscape values. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 43:191-200.
10. Carrus G., Lafortezza R., Colangelo G., Dentamaro I., Scopelliti M., Sanesi G. Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. Psyecology 2013, 4:227-244.
11. Cole D.N., Hall T.E. Experiencing the restorative components of wilderness environments: does congestion interfere and does length of exposure matter?. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42(6):806-823.
12. Daniel T.C., Muhar A., Arnberger A., Aznar O., Boyd J.W., Chan K.M.A., von der Dunk A. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 2012, 109:8812-8819.
13. De Groot W.T., van den Born R.J.G. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63(3):127-138.
14. Degenhardt B., Buchecker M. Exploring the self-regulation in nearby nature. Determinants, patterns and a framework of nearby outdoor recreation behaviour. Leis. Sci. 2012, 34:350-369.
15. Degenhardt B., Frick J., Gutscher H., Buchecker M. Influence of personal, social, and environmental factors on workday use frequency of the nearby outdoor recreation areas by working people. Leis. Sci. 2011, 33(5):420-440.
16. English Nature Dogs, Access and Nature Conservation. English Nature Research Reports, Number 649 2005, English Nature, UK.
17. Evans G.W., Cohen S. Environmental stress. Handbook of Environmental Psychology 1991, vol. 1:571-610. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida.
18. Gobster P.H. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33:401-413.
19. Hands D., Brown R. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 58:57-70.
20. Hansmann R., Hug S.-M., Seeland K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6:213-225.
21. Hartig T., Staats H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26(3):215-226.
22. Hartig T., Evans G.W., Jamner L.D., Davis D.S., Gärling T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23(2):109-123.
23. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, University Press, Cambridge.
24. Herzog T.R., Kutzli G.E. Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34:819-835.
25. Jorgensen A., Hitchmough J., Calvert T. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59:1-11.
26. Laing R., Davies A.-M., Scott S. Combining visualization with choice experimentation in the built environment. Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning - Technology and Applications 2005, 212-219. Taylor & Francis, New York. I.D. Bishop, E. Lange (Eds.).
27. Lieber S.R., Fesenmaier D.R. Modelling recreation choice: a case study of management alternatives in Chicago. Reg. Stud. 1984, 18(1):31-43.
28. Lindsey G. Use of urban greenways: insights from Indianapolis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 45:145-157.
29. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application 2000, University Press, Cambridge, NJ.
30. Manning R.E. Studies in Outdoor Recreation - Search and Research for Satisfaction 1999, University Press, Corvallis OR.
31. Marin L.D., Newman P., Manning R., Vaske J.J., Stack D. Motivation and acceptability norms of human-caused sound in Muir Woods National Monument. Leis. Sci. 2011, 33:147-161.
32. Martens D., Gutscher H., Bauer N. Walking in "wild" and "tended" urban forests: the impact on psychological well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31:36-44.
33. Neuvonen M., Sievänen T., Tönnes S., Koskela T. Access to green areas and the frequency of visits - a case study in Helsinki. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6:235-247.
34. Nordh H., Alalouch C., Hartig T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10:95-103.
35. Peterson G.L., Dwyer J.F., Darragh A.J. A behavioral urban recreation site choice model. Leis. Sci. 1983, 6(1):61-81.
36. Ponje M., Timmermans H. Development of a conjoint choice model to predict trips to urban parks in Eindhoven. Green Space. Final report 2005, 33-37. http://www.ucd.ie/greensp/docs/final1.pdf (retrieved 31.5.12). C. Bullock (Ed.).
37. Reichhart T., Arnberger A. Exploring the influence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer animated choice experiment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 96(1):1-11.
38. Reynolds K.D., Wolch J., Byrne J., Chou C.-P., Feng G., Weaver S., et al. Trail characteristics as correlates of urban trail use. Am. J. Health Promot. 2007, 21(4):335-345.
39. Roe J., Aspinall P. The restorative benefits of walking in urban and rural settings in adults with good and poor mental health. Health Place 2011, 17:103-113.
40. Roovers P., Hermy M., Gulinck H. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59:129-145.
41. Schipperijn J., Ekholm O., Stigsdotter U.K., Toftager M., Bentsen P., Kamper-Jorgensen F., Randrup T.B. Factors influencing the use of green space: results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95:130-137.
42. Schmidt D., Keating J. Human crowding and personal control: an integration of the research. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86:680-700.
43. Schroeder H.W., Louviere J. Stated choice models for predicting the impact of user fees at public recreation sites. J. Leis. Res. 1999, 31(3):300-321.
44. Shelby B., Heberlein T. Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings 1986, University Press, Oregon State.
45. Staats H., Hartig T. Alone or with a friend: a social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24:199-211.
46. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kohlemainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 1:135-149.
47. Tyrväinen L., Ojala A., Korpela K., Lanki T., Tsunetsugu Y., Kagawa T. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: a field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38:1-9.
48. Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 1:201-230.
49. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., Van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (how) are they related?. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23:135-146.
50. Velarde M.D., Fry G., Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes - landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6:199-212.
51. Verlič A., Arnberger A., Japelj A., Simončič P., Pirnat J. Perceptions of recreational trail impacts on an urban forest walk: a controlled field experiment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14(1):89-98.
52. Vermunt J.K., Magidson J. Latent Gold Choice User's Manual 2003, Statistical Innovations, Inc., Belmont, MA.
53. Völker S., Kistemann T. I'm always entirely happy when I'm here! Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 78:113-124.
54. von Janowsky D., Becker G. Characteristics and needs of different user groups in the urban forest of Stuttgart. J. Nat. Conserv. 2003, 11(4):251-259.
55. Ward Thompson C. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60:59-72.