The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 18, Issue , 2016, Pages 268-276

  Ode Sang, Åsa ^a   Knez, Igor ^b   Gunnarsson, Bengt ^c   Hedblom, Marcus ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GÄVLE   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cultural ecosystem services; Green infrastructure; Landscape planning; Well being

Indexed keywords

AGE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GENDER; GREENSPACE; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; NATURALNESS; NEIGHBORHOOD; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; URBAN PLANNING;

GOTEBORG; SWEDEN; VASTRA GOTALAND;

EID: 84978370537     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K., Abel, T., Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. Int. J. Public Health 55 (2010), 59–69.
2. Bech, P., Gudex, C., Staehr Johansen, K., The WHO (Ten) well-being index: validation in diabetes. Psychother. Psychosomatics 65 (1996), 183–190.
3. Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., Cohen, D.A., The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28 (2005), 159–168.
4. Bell, S., Thompson, C.W., Travlou, P., Contested views of freedom and control: children, teenagers and urban fringe woodlands in Central Scotland. Urban For. Urban Green. 2 (2003), 87–100.
5. Berg, M., Medrich, E.A., Children in four neighborhoods: the physical environment and its effect on play and play patterns. Environ. Behavi. 12 (1980), 320–348.
6. Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10, 2010, 456.
7. Caula, S., Hvenegaard, G.T., Marty, P., The influence of bird information, attitudes, and demographics on public preferences toward urban green spaces: the case of Montpellier, France. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (2009), 117–128.
8. Chan, K.M., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services: a framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62 (2012), 744–756.
9. Cohen, D.A., McKenzie, T.L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., Lurie, N., Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 97 (2007), 509–514.
10. Council of Europe. European landscape convention. European Treaty Series, 176 (2000).
11. de Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plann. A 35 (2003), 1717–1731.
12. Dzhambov, A.M., Dimitrova, D.D., Elderly visitors of an urban park, health anxiety and individual awareness of nature experiences. Urban For. Urban Green. 13 (2014), 806–813.
13. Gobster, P.H., Westphal, L.M., The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landsc. Urban Plann. 68 (2004), 147–165.
14. Göteborgs stad, 2014. Development strategy Göteborg 2035. Göteborg.
15. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43 (2014), 413–433.
16. Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G.W., Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environ. Behav. 23 (1991), 3–26.
17. Hartig, T., Van den Berg, A.E., Hagerhall, C.M., Tomalak, M., Bauer, N., Hansmann, R., Ojala, A., Syngollitou, E., Carrus, G., van Herzele, A., Health benefits of nature experience: psychological, social and cultural processes. Nilsson, K., (eds.) Forests, Trees and Human Health, 2011, Springer, Berlin, 127–168.
18. Hedblom, M., Heyman, E., Antonsson, H., Gunnarsson, B., Bird song diversity influences young people's appreciation of urban landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 13 (2014), 469–474.
19. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29 (2013), 434–444.
20. James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K.L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A.E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemelä, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J.P., Ward Thompson, C., Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (2009), 65–75.
21. Jansson, M., Fors, H., Lindgren, T., Wiström, B., Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland vegetation—a review. Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (2013), 127–133.
22. Jorgensen, A., Anthopoulou, A., Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands—does age make a difference?. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (2007), 267–278.
23. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T., Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plann. 60 (2002), 135–150.
24. Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B., Lindemann-Matthies, P., Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plann. 133 (2015), 67–77.
25. Kaczynski, A.T., Potwarka, L.R., Smale, B.J.A., Havitz, M.E., Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: variations by gender and age. Leisure Sci. 31 (2009), 174–191.
26. Kienast, F., Degenhardt, B., Weilenmann, B., Wäger, Y., Buchecker, M., GIS-assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 105 (2012), 385–399.
27. Knez, I., Thorsson, S., Influences of culture and environmental attitude on thermal: emotional and perceptual evaluations of a square. Int. J. Biometeorol. 50 (2006), 258–268.
28. Knez, I., Thorsson, S., Thermal: emotional and perceptual evaluations of a park: cross-cultural and environmental attitude comparisons. Build. Environ. 43 (2008), 1483–1490.
29. Knez, I., Autobiographical memories for places. Memory 14 (2006), 359–377.
30. Knez, I., Place and the self: an autobiographical memory synthesis. Philos. Psychol. 27 (2014), 164–192.
31. Konijnendijk, C.C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A.B., Maruthaveeran, S., Benefits of urban parks: a systematic review. A Report for IPFRA, 2013, IFPRA, Copenhagen & Alnarp.
32. Koppen, G., Sang, Å.O., Tveit, M.S., Managing the potential for outdoor recreation: adequate mapping and measuring of accessibility to urban recreational landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 13 (2014), 71–83.
33. Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Restorative qualities of favorite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 16 (1996), 221–233.
34. Korpela, K.M., Adolescents’ favourite places and environmental self-regulation. J. Environ. Psychol. 12 (1992), 249–258.
35. Lachowycz, K., Jones, A.P., Towards a better understanding of the relationship between greenspace and health: development of a theoretical framework. Landsc. Urban Plann. 118 (2013), 62–69.
36. Mäkinen, K., Tyrväinen, L., Teenage experiences of public green spaces in suburban Helsinki. Urban For. Urban Green. 7 (2008), 277–289.
37. McGuigan, F.J., Experimental Psychology: Methods of Research. 1983, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
38. Mowen, A.J., Payne, L.L., Scott, D., Change and stability in park visitation constraints revisited. Leisure Sci. 27 (2005), 191–204.
39. Nielsen, A.B., Hedblom, M., Söderström, B., From large woodland landscapes to small wooded lots-urban woodlands in Denmark and Sweden, and management lines to pursue. In: forestry serving urban societies in the North-Atlantic region. TemaNord, 2010, 2010, 577.
40. Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C.M., Fry, G., Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (2009), 225–235.
41. Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., Hartig, T., Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 10 (2011), 95–103.
42. Ode, A., Tveit, M.S., Fry, G., Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 33 (2008), 89–117.
43. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., Miller, D., Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 375–383.
44. Pauleit, S., Perspectives on urban greenspace in Europe. Built Environ., 2003, 88–93 (1978-).
45. Payne, L.L., Mowen, A.J., Orsega-Smith, E., An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race, and age. Leisure Sci. 24 (2002), 181–198.
46. Purcell, T., Peron, E., Berto, R., Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environ. Behav. 33 (2001), 93–106.
47. Richardson, E.A., Mitchell, R., Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Soc. Sci. Med. 71 (2010), 568–575.
48. Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Ward, B.P., Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 1–15.
49. Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U.K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., Randrup, T.B., Factors influencing the use of green space: results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsca. Urban Plann. 95 (2010), 130–137.
50. Staats, H., Kieviet, A., Hartig, T., Where to recover from attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (2003), 147–157.
51. Tveit, M.S., Sang, A.O., Landscape assessment in metropolitan areas: developing a visual indicator-based approach. SPOOL 1 (2014), 301–316.
52. Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc. Urban Plann. 79 (2007), 5–19.
53. 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. 38 (2014), 1–9.
54. UN, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. 2014, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division, United Nations.
55. Van den Berg, A.E., Jorgensen, A., Wilson, E.R., Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: does setting type make a difference?. Landsc. Urban Plann. 127 (2014), 173–181.
56. Van der Jagt, A.P.N., Craig, T., Anable, J., Brewer, M.J., Pearson, D.G., Unearthing the picturesque: the validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 124 (2014), 1–13.
57. Velarde, M.D., Fry, G., Tveit, M., Health effects of viewing landscapes: landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (2007), 199–212.
58. Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., Mateo-Babiano, I., A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities 42 (2015), 85–96.
59. Westerink, J., Aalbers, C., The Hague Region: Negotiating the Common Ground in Peri-Urban Landscapes, Peri-urban Futures: Scenarios and Models for Land Use Change in Europe. 2013, Springer, Berlin, 99–112.
60. WWF, Large Parks in Large Cities, Stockholm, 2–5 September, 2015.