Perception of Urban Green Areas Associated with Sociodemographic Affiliation, Structural Elements, and Acceptance Stripes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (i)
- Can an acceptance stripe improve the perception or acceptance of natural meadows?
- (ii)
- Can certain structural elements (e.g., seats or sculptures) generate positive perception regardless of the type of green space?
- (iii)
- What influence does the socio-demographic affiliation of a citizen have on his or her acceptance behavior?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Preparation and Implementation of the Questionnaire
2.2. Statistical Data Evaluation
3. Results
Age: | Faculties: | |||
I. | 0–20 years | I. | Theology | |
II. | 20–40 years | II. | Law | |
III. | 40–60 years | III. | Medicine | |
IV. | 60 years and older | IV. | Humanities | |
V. | Economic Sciences | |||
VI. | Social Sciences | |||
VII. | Natural Sciences |
4. Discussion
4.1. Peoples’ Self-Perception
4.2. Commitment to Nature Conservation
4.3. Non-Students
4.4. Students
4.5. Faculties
4.6. Age
4.7. Family Status
4.8. Gender
4.9. Importance of the Overall Setting of the Urban Green Area
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Age | Gender | Has Children | Student | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | III. | IV. | Male | Female | Yes | Yes | No | |
Lawn (1H) | 29 (3.0) | |||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.1G) | 10 (−2.9) | 71 (3.6) | 77 (−2.4) | 13 (−2.3) | 123 (2.4) | 25 (−3.4) | ||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.1H) | 30 (4.0) | 14 (−2.9) | 82 (3.3) | 98 (−2.2) | 38 (−2.8) | |||
Lawn, Pathway (2.1I) | 11 (−2.3) | |||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.2I) | 72 (−3.1) | 165 (−2.8) | ||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.3G) | 46 (−2.1) | 156 (3.4) | 218 (−2.4) | 45 (−2.1) | 290 (2.4) | 86 (−3.4) | ||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.3H) | 6 (−3.1) | 171 (−2.3) | ||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.3I) | 40 (−4.8) | |||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench (3A) | ii: 10 (3.4) | |||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench, Lanterns (3B) | i: 1 (−2.4) ii: 1 (−2.1) | i: 5 (−2.5) | ||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3C) | i: 21 (3.0) ii: 9 (2.2) | |||||||
Lawn with Trees Bench, Lanterns (3E) | i: 21 (−2.5) | ii: 86 (−2.3) | i: 23 (−2.1) | |||||
Lawn with Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3F) | ii: 35 (3.0) |
Age | Gender | Has Children | Student | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | II. | III. | IV. | Male | Female | Yes | Yes | No | |
Unnatural Green Space with an Acceptance Stripe (1E) | 7 (−2.5) | ||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Pathway (2.1F) | 109 (−2.2) | ||||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.2B) | 82 (2.4) | ||||||||
Meadow, Pathway (2.2C) | 66 (4.5) | 57 (3.1) | 126 (−2.3) | 105 (3.3) | |||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Large Forecourt (2.2D) | 6 (−2.3) | ||||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.3B) | 109 (−2.7) | 60 (4.9) | 13 (2.9) | 55 (4.2) | 99 (−2.7) | 94 (3.8) | |||
Meadow, Pathway (2.3C) | 47 (2.2) | 13 (2.7) | 84 (2.3) | 85 (2.1) | |||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Large Forecourt (2.3D) | 44 (2.4) | ||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Small Forecourt (2.3E) | 13 (2.2) | ||||||||
Meadow without Trees Bench (3G) | ii: 14 (−2.1) | ||||||||
Meadow without Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3I) | i: 46 (2.8) ii: 23 (2.8) | ||||||||
Meadow with Trees Bench (3J) | ii: 9 (−2.1) | ||||||||
Meadow with Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3L) | i: 41 (−2.2) | i: 30 (4.7) ii: 16 (3.1) | i: 23 (2.8) | i: 32 (−2.9) | i: 47 (4.1) ii: 25 (2.5) |
Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | Self-Perception | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | II. | III. | IV. | V. | VI. | VII. | Yes | No | Country Type | City Type | |
Lawn (1G) | 10 (2.4) | 10 (−2.1) | |||||||||
Lawn (1H) | 4 (2.2) | 15 (−2.5) | 37 (2.7) | ||||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.1G) | 14 (5.0) | 33 (−2.5) | 73 (2.7) | ||||||||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.1H) | 15 (3.5) | 72 (−2.5) | 108 (2.8) | ||||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.1I) | 38 (2.1) | 47 (−2.7) | 82 (3.0) | ||||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.2G) | 8 (2.8) | 56 (−2.4) | 86 (2.5) | 68 (−2.2) | 68 (2.3) | ||||||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.2H) | 49 (2.7) | 19 (−2.1) | 219 (−2.5) | 260 (2.7) | |||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.2I) | 294 (−2.2) | 324 (2.4) | |||||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.3G) | 16 (2.3) | 15 (−2.4) | 156 (−3.1) | 214 (3.4) | |||||||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.3H) | 302 (−2.4) | 338 (2.5) | |||||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.3I) | 122 (−2.2) | 231 (−2.4) | 269 (2.5) | ||||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench (3A) | i: 5 (2.7) | ||||||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench, Lanterns (3B) | ii: 5 (3.8) | i: 4 (2.5) | |||||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3C) | ii: 2 (3.5) | i: 15 (3.0) |
Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | Self-Perception | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | II. | III. | V. | VI. | VII. | Yes | No | City Type | |
Unnatural Green Space (1F) | 30 (2.1) | ||||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.1B) | 198 (−2.1) | ||||||||
Meadow, Large Forecourt (2.2A) | 4 (3.1) | ||||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.2B) | 127 (2.4) | 63 (−2.6) | |||||||
Meadow, Pathway 2.2C) | 160 (3.2) | 71 (−3.4) | |||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Small Forecourt (2.2E) | 17 (2.3) | ||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Pathway (2.2F) | 336 (3.1) | 189 (−3.3) | |||||||
Meadow, Large Forecourt (2.3A) | 100 (2.2) | 49 (−2.3) | |||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.3B) | 49 (−2.5) | ||||||||
Meadow, Pathway (2.3C) | 5 (−2.2) | 67 (2.3) | 141 (2.8) | 66 (−3.0) | |||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Small Forecourt (2.3E) | 1 (−2.1) | 74 (2.1) | 148 (2.1) | 84 (−2.2) | 103 (2.1) | ||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Pathway (2.3F) | 96 (−2.1) |
Appendix B
Natural Meadow (A and B) | Natural Meadow (C and D) | Unnatural Meadow (E and F) | Lawn (G) | Lawn (H) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario | Shooting date: 1 June 2015 | Shooting date: 7 June 2012 | Shooting date: 20 July 2015 | Shooting date: 7 June 2012 | Shooting date: 20 July 2015 |
Camera: Canon Power Shot A2200 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix Z33WP | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix Z33WP | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 6 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 6 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 1 June 2015 | Shooting date: 7 June 2012 | Shooting date: 20 July 2015 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 |
Camera: Canon Power Shot A2200 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix Z33WP | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 6 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 32 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Additionally Used Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 7-June-2014 | ||||
Camera: Leica V-LUX1 | |||||
Focal length: 7 mm | |||||
Acceptance Stripe | Shooting date: 19-October-2015 | Shooting date: 19-October-2015 | |||
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | ||||
Focal length: 32 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | ||||
Pathway | Shooting date: 8 July 2015 | Shooting date: 8 July 2015 | Shooting date: 13 January 2013 | Shooting date: 8 July 2015 | Shooting date: 13 January 2013 |
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | |
Focal length: 35 mm | Focal length: 35 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 35 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | |
Background Merging | Shooting date: 18 October 2015 | Shooting date: 18 October 2015 | |||
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | ||||
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm |
Meadow (A, B, C) | Meadow Mowed Margin (D, E, F) | Lawn (G, H, I) | |
---|---|---|---|
Scenario | Shooting date: 19 November 2015 | Shooting date: 19 November 2015 | Shooting date: 19 November 2015 |
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 7 June 2014 | Shooting date: 7 June 2014 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 |
Camera: Leica V-LUX1 | Camera: Leica V-LUX1 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 16 mm | Focal length: 16 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Additionally Used Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 7-June-2014 | Shooting date: 7-June-2014 | |
Camera: Leica V-LUX1 | Camera: Leica V-LUX1 | ||
Focal length: 12 mm | Focal length: 16 mm | ||
Acceptance Stripe | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | ||
Camera: Nikon D5100 | |||
Focal length: 18 mm | |||
Background merging | Shooting date: 23 April 2015 | Shooting date: 23 April 2015 | Shooting date: 23 April 2015 |
Camera: Samsung GT-I8160 | Camera: Samsung GT-I8160 | Camera: Samsung GT-I8160 | |
Focal length: 4 mm | Focal length: 4 mm | Focal length: 4 mm |
Meadow (A) | Meadow(B and C) | Meadow Mowed Margin (D and E) | Meadow Mowed Margin (F) | Lawn (G) | Lawn (H and I) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 |
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 |
Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Additionally Used Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | |||
Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | ||||
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | ||||
Acceptance Stripe | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | ||||
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |||||
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |||||
Background Merging | Shooting date: 30 January 2016 | Shooting date: 30 January 2016 | Shooting date: 30 January 2016 | |||
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | ||||
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm |
Meadow (A, B, C) | Meadow Mowed Margin (D, E, F) | Lawn (G, H, I) | |
---|---|---|---|
Scenario | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 | Shooting date: 17 October 2015 |
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 1 August 2012 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 |
Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 14 mm | Focal length: 14 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Acceptance Stripe | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | ||
Camera: Nikon D5100 | |||
Focal length: 18 mm |
Lawn without Trees (A, B, C) | Lawn with Trees (D, E, F) | Meadow without Trees (G, H, I) | Meadow with Trees (J, K, L) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario | Shooting date: 2 May 2010 | Shooting date: 25 April 2010 | Shooting date: 17 May 2012 | Shooting date: 26 May 2010 |
Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX55 | Camera: Canon EOS 5D | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: Panasonic DMC-TZ5 | |
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 12 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | |
Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 2 May 2010 | Shooting date: 25 April 2010 | Shooting date: 17 May 2012 | Shooting date: 6 June 2013 |
Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX55 | Camera: Canon EOS 5D | Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | Camera: N/A | |
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 12 mm | Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: N/A | |
Additionally Used Image of Green Space | Shooting date: 2 May 2010 | Shooting date: 19 October 2015 | ||
Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX55 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |||
Focal length: 5 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |||
Bench | Shooting date: 30 October 2015 | Shooting date: 30 October 2015 | Shooting date: 30 October 2015 | Shooting date: 18 October 2015 |
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 55 mm | |
Lanterns | Shooting date: 13 June 2010 | FreeImages.com/ sue anna joe Shooting date: 27 October 2007 | FreeImages.com/ sue anna joe Shooting date: 27 October 2007 | Shooting date: 13 June 2010 |
Camera: Canon Power Shot A610 | Camera: Canon Power Shot A530 | Camera: Canon Power Shot A530 | Camera: Canon Power Shot A610 | |
Focal length: 7 mm | Focal length: 12 mm | Focal length: 12 mm | Focal length: 7 mm | |
Sculpture | Shooting date: 24 October 2015 | Shooting date: 24 October 2015 | Shooting date: 24 October 2015 | Shooting date: 24 October 2015 |
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | Camera: Nikon D5100 | |
Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | Focal length: 18 mm | |
Background Merging | Shooting date: 13 January 2013 | |||
Camera: FUJIFILM FinePix JX350 | ||||
Focal length: 5 mm |
References
- Southon, G.E.; Jorgensen, A.; Dunnett, N.; Hoyle, H.; Evans, K.L. Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ineichen, S.; Klausnitzer, B.; Ruckstuhl, M. Stadtfauna; Haupt Verlag: Berne, Switzerland, 2012. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Obrist, M.K.; Sattler, T.; Home, R.; Gloor, S.; Bontadina, F.; Nobis, M.; Braaker, S.; Duelli, P.; Bauer, N.; Della Bruna, P. Biodiversität in der Stadt—Für Mensch und Natur; Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft: Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 2012. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Goddard, M.A.; Dougill, A.J.; Benton, T.G. Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Nakagoshi, N.; Zong, Y. Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Junge, X.; Matthies, D. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniels, B.; Zaunbrecher, B.S.; Paas, B.; Ottermanns, R.; Ziefle, M.; Roß-Nickoll, M. Assessment of urban green space structures and their quality from a multidimensional perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 1364–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rega-Brodsky, C.C.; Nilon, C.H.; Warren, P.S. Balancing urban biodiversity needs and resident preferences for vacant lot management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nielsen, A.B.; van den Bosch, M.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C. Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosyst. 2014, 17, 305–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geslin, B.; Gauzens, B.; Thebault, E.; Dajoz, I. Plant pollinator networks along a gradient of urbanisation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mace, G.M.; Norris, K.; Fitter, A.H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farinha-Marques, P.; Lameiras, J.M.; Fernandes, C.; Silva, S.; Guilherme, F. Urban biodiversity: A review of current concepts and contributions to multidisciplinary approaches. Innovation (Abingdon) 2011, 24, 247–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claßen, T. Empirische Befunde zum Zusammenhang von Landschaft und physischer Gesundheit. In Landschaft, Identität und Gesundheit; Gebhard, U., Kistemann, T., Eds.; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016; pp. 71–91. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Janhäll, S. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution—Deposition and dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 105, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calfapietra, C.; Fares, S.; Manes, F.; Morani, A.; Sgrigna, G.; Loreto, F. Role of Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (BVOC) emitted by urban trees on ozone concentration in cities: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 183, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henninger, S. Notwendiger Wandel im Umgang mit innerstädtischen Grünflächen. In Räume im Wandel; Junkernheinrich, M., Ziegler, K., Eds.; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013; pp. 73–92. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gebhard, U. Wie Wirken Natur und Landschaft auf Gesundheit, Wohlbefinden und Lebensqualität? Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2010. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Cervinka, R. Natur und Naturnahe Artefakte. Gesundheit, Wohlbefinden und Nachhaltige Entwicklung; Forum Österreichischer Wissenschaftler für Umweltschutz: Vienna, Austria, 2005. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Peters, K.B.M.; Elands, B.H.M.; Buijs, A.E. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer, L.K.; Honold, J.; Cvejić, R.; Delshammar, T.; Hilbert, S.; Lafortezza, R.; Nastran, M.; Nielsen, A.B.; Pintar, M.; van der Jagt, A.P. Beyond green: Broad support for biodiversity in multicultural European cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 49, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Rupprecht, C.; Furuya, K. Residents’ perception of informal green space—A case study of Ichikawa City, Japan. Land 2018, 7, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartig, T.; Kahn, P.H. Living in cities, naturally. Science 2016, 352, 938–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kardan, O.; Gozdyra, P.; Misic, B.; Moola, F.; Palmer, L.J.; Paus, T.; Berman, M.G. Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shanahan, D.F.; Lin, B.B.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Dean, J.H.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Toward Improved Public Health Outcomes from Urban Nature. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clark, N.E.; Lovell, R.; Wheeler, B.W.; Higgins, S.L.; Depledge, M.H.; Norris, K. Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: A framework. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Marty, T. Does ecological gardening increase species richness and aesthetic quality of a garden? Biol. Conserv. 2013, 159, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haas, J.; Furberg, D.; Ban, Y. Satellite monitoring of urbanization and environmental impacts—A comparison of Stockholm and Shanghai. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2015, 38, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seto, K.C.; Güneralp, B.; Hutyra, L.R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16083–16088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sheng, Y.K.; Thuzar, M. Urbanisation in Southeast Asia: Issues and Impacts; Institute of Southeast Asian Studies: Singapore, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, R.I.; Forman, R.T.T.; Kareiva, P. Open space loss and land inequality in United States’ cities, 1990–2000. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haaland, C.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.B.; Fuller, R.A. FORUM: Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world’s cities? J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 1161–1168. [Google Scholar]
- Dallimer, M.; Tang, Z.; Bibby, P.R.; Brindley, P.; Gaston, K.J.; Davies, Z.G. Temporal changes in greenspace in a highly urbanized region. Biol. Lett. 2011, 7, 763–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shwartz, A.; Turbé, A.; Julliard, R.; Simon, L.; Prévot, A.-C. Outstanding challenges for urban conservation research and action. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowarik, I. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 1974–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McKinney, M.L. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 2002, 52, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shwartz, A.; Turbé, A.; Simon, L.; Julliard, R. Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 171, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dearborn, D.C.; Kark, S. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Güneralp, B.; Seto, K.C. Futures of global urban expansion: Uncertainties and implications for biodiversity conservation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 014025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garbuzov, M.; Fensome, K.A.; Ratnieks, F.L.W. Public approval plus more wildlife: Twin benefits of reduced mowing of amenity grass in a suburban public park in Saltdean, UK. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2015, 8, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dietrich, K. Urbane Gärten für Mensch und Natur: Eine Übersicht und Bibliographie; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2014. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, M.K.; Tischew, S. Grassland restoration in practice: Do we achieve the targets? A case study from Saxony-Anhalt/Germany. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 1149–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazmierczak, A.; Armitage, R.; James, P. Urban green spaces: Natural and accessible? The case of greater Manchester, UK. In Urban Biodiversity and Design; Müller, N., Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 381–405. [Google Scholar]
- Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Payne, S.R.; Fuller, R.A.; Painter, B.; Gaston, K.J. Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: An interdisciplinary, empirical study. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standish, R.J.; Hobbs, R.J.; Miller, J.R. Improving city life: Options for ecological restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1213–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahern, J.; Boughton, J. Wildflower meadows as sustainable landscapes. In The Ecological City; Platt, R.H., Rowntree, R.A., Muick, P.C., Eds.; University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 172–187. [Google Scholar]
- Unterweger, P.A.; Rieger, C.; Betz, O. The influence of urban lawn mowing regimes on diversity of Heteroptera (Hemiptera). Heteropteron 2017, 48, 7–21. [Google Scholar]
- Hiller, D.; Betz, O. Auswirkungen verschiedener Mahdkonzepte auf die Heuschreckenfauna städtischer Grünflächen. Naturschutz Landsch. 2014, 46, 241–246. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Kricke, V.C.; Bamann, T.; Betz, O. Einfluss städtischer Mahdkonzepte auf die Artenvielfalt der Tagfalter. Naturschutz Landsch. 2014, 46, 52–58. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Venn, S.; Kotze, D.J. Benign neglect enhances urban habitat heterogeneity: Responses of vegetation and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to the cessation of mowing of park lawns. Eur. J. Entomol. 2014, 111, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Witt, R. Das Haarer Modell. Stadt+Grün Das Gartenamt 2014. (In German). Available online: http://www.xn--bchelberg-q9a.de/buechelberg/downloads/2018/naturnahe_gruenpflege_haarer_modell.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2020).
- Unterweger, P.A.; Ade, J.; Braun, A.; Koltzenburg, M.; Kricke, C.; Schnee, L.; Wastian, L.; Betz, O. Langfristige Etablierung extensiver Grünflächenpflege in Stadtgebieten; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2013; pp. 89–94. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Ade, J.; Wolf-Schwenninger, K.; Betz, O. Auswirkungen der Wiesenmahd auf verschiedene Käferarten ausgewählter Grünflächen im Stadtgebiet Tübingens. Jahresh. Ges. Naturkunde Württ. 2012, 168, 199–216. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Wastian, L.; Unterweger, P.A.; Betz, O. Influence of the reduction of urban lawn mowing on wild bee diversity (Hymenoptera, Apoidea), Journal of Hymenoptera Research 2016, 49, 51-63.
- Sattler, T.; Obrist, M.K.; Duelli, P.; Moretti, M. Urban arthropod communities: Added value or just a blend of surrounding biodiversity? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baur, B. Biodiversität; Haupt Verlag: Berne, Switzerland, 2010. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Streit, B. Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt. Über spekulative Zahlen und realisierbare Ziele. Forsch. Lehre 2010, 9, 654–656. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Balmford, A.; Bond, W. Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 1218–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, J.A.; Telfer, M.G.; Roy, D.B.; Preston, C.D.; Greenwood, J.J.D.; Asher, J.; Fox, R.; Clarke, R.T.; Lawton, J.H. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 2004, 303, 1879–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MEA. Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: A Framework for the Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Balvanera, P.; Pfisterer, A.B.; Buchmann, N.; He, J.-S.; Nakashizuka, T.; Raffaelli, D.; Schmid, B. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 1146–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hooper, D.U.; Chapin, F.S.; Ewel, J.J.; Hector, A.; Inchausti, P.; Lavorel, S.; Lawton, J.H.; Lodge, D.M.; Loreau, M.; Naeem, S. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 2005, 75, 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spehn, E.M.; Hector, A.; Joshi, J.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Schmid, B.; Bazeley-White, E.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Caldeira, M.C.; Diemer, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.; et al. Ecosystem effects of biodiversity manipulations in European grasslands. Ecol. Monogr. 2005, 75, 37–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meurk, C.D.; Blaschke, P.M.; Simcock, R.C. Ecosystem services in New Zealand cities. In Ecosystem Services in New Zealand—Conditions and Trends; Dymond, J.R., Ed.; Manaaki Whenua Press: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2013; pp. 254–273. [Google Scholar]
- Kowarik, I. Cities and Wilderness. A new perspective. Int. J. Wilderness 2013, 19, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
- Meske, M. "Natur Ist für Mich Die Welt": Lebensweltlich Geprägte Naturbilder von Kindern; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2011. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Claßen, T.; Kistermann, T.; Schillhorn, K. Naturschutz und Gesundheitsschutz; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2005. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Council of Europe. The European Landscape Convention, Article 1. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/1680080621 (accessed on 6 February 2020).
- Unterweger, P.A.; Schrode, N.; Betz, O. Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rovers, A.-K. Kulturelle Ökosystemdienstleistungen und Ansätze zu Ihrer Quantifizierung—Am Beispiel von Wald-; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2012. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- BMU. 2015 Nature Awareness Study, Population Survey on Nature and Biological Diversity; Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bonnes, M.; Uzzell, D.; Carrus, G.; Kelay, T. Inhabitants’ and experts’ assessments of environmental quality for urban sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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 Plan. 2015, 133, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Junge, X.; Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Hunziker, M.; Schüpbach, B. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Junge, X.; Matthies, D. Experimental evidence for human preference of biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nielsen, A.B.; Olsen, S.B.; Lundhede, T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dramstad, W.E.; Tveit, M.S.; Fjellstad, W.J.; Fry, G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Born, R.J.G.; Lenders, R.H.J.; De Groot, W.T.; Huijsman, E. The new biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environ. Conserv. 2001, 28, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Junge, X.; Jacot, K.A.; Bosshard, A.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Swiss people’s attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2009, 17, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stilma, E.S.C.; Smit, A.B.; Geerling-Eiff, F.A.; Struik, P.C.; Vosman, B.; Korevaar, H. Perception of biodiversity in arable production systems in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wagen. J. Life Sci. 2009, 56, 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Bose, E. Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, E.J.P.; Moonen, A.C. Field margins in northern Europe: Their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 89, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P. Beasts or beauties? Laypersons’ perception of invasive alien plant species in Switzerland and attitudes towards their management. NeoBiota 2016, 29, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sikorski, P.; Wińska-Krysiak, M.; Chormański, J.; Krauze, K.; Kubacka, K.; Sikorska, D. Low-maintenance green tram tracks as a socially acceptable solution to greening a city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 35, 148–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Brieger, H. Does urban gardening increase aesthetic quality of urban areas? A case study from Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schüpbach, B.; Junge, X.; Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Walter, T. Seasonality, diversity and aesthetic valuation of landscape plots: An integrative approach to assess landscape quality on different scales. Land Use Policy 2016, 53, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, L.; Lindberg, S.; Nielsen, A.B. Is biodiversity attractive? —On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassauer, J.I. Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100, 321–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode, Å.; Miller, D. Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiersbinski, N. Zur Gesellschaftlichen Akzeptanz von Naturschutzmaßnahmen: Materialienband; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 1998. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Akbar, K.F.; Hale, W.H.G.; Headley, A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassauer, J.I. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 10, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perpeet, M. Landschaftserlebnis und Landschaftsgestaltung; Schriftenreihe des Institutes für Landespflege der Universität Freiburg: Breisgau, Germany, 1992. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Hoboken NJ, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Goddard, M.A.; Dougill, A.J.; Benton, T.G. Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diekmann, A. Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen Methoden Anwendungen; Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag: Reinbek, Germany, 2007. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Unipark, version 2014; EFS Survey; Questback GmbH: Köln, Germany, 2014.
- FREEIMAGES. Available online: https://de.freeimages.com/ (accessed on 6 February 2020).
- 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 Plan. 2014, 124, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafson, P. Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt-Dumont, G. Ästhetische Kommunikation am Beispiel von Bildgestaltung und Bildrezeption im Bilderbuch. In Beiträge Jugendliteratur und Medien; Juventa Verlag: Weinheim, Germany, 1997; Volume 8, pp. 73–97. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Bühl, A. SPSS 23: Einführung in die Moderne Datenanalyse; Pearson Deutschland: München, Germany, 2016. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Hunziker, M. Die Bedeutungen der Landschaft für den Menschen: Objektive Eigenschaft der Landschaft oder individuelle Wahrnehmung des Menschen? Forum für Wissen 2010, 2010, 33–41. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Backhaus, N.; Reichler, C.; Stremlow, M. Alpenlandschaften? Von der Vorstellung zur Handlung; Synthesebericht NFP 48, Schweizer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung SNF: Berne, Switzerland, 2007. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourassa, S.C. The Aesthetics of Landscape; Belhaven Press: London, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Home, R.; Bauer, N.; Hunziker, M. Cultural and biological determinants in the evaluation of urban green spaces. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 494–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunziker, M.; Kienast, F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty–a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc. Ecol. 1999, 14, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, B. European Vision and the South Pacific; Yale University Press: Connecticut, CT, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Orians, G.H. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In the Evolution of Human Social Behavior, 1st ed.; Lockard, J., Ed.; Elsevier: Chicago, IL, USA, 1980; pp. 49–66. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.; Wendt, J.S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept. Psychophys. 1972, 12, 354–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shephard, P. English reaction to the New Zealand landscape before 1850. In Pacific Viewpoint; Victoria University, Department of Geography: Wellington, New Zealand, 1969; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- Hunziker, M.; Felber, P.; Gehring, M.; Buchecker, M.; Bauer, N.; Kienast, F. How do different societal groups evaluate past and future landscape changes? Results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunziker, M.; Hoffmann, C.; Wild, S. Die Akzeptanz von Raubtieren, Gründe und Hintergründe–Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage in der Schweiz. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 2001, 76, 301–326. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Hunziker, M. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: Perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 31, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Shan, X. Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities 2013, 31, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, L.K.; Honold, J.; Botzat, A.; Brinkmeyer, D.; Cvejić, R.; Delshammar, T.; Elands, B.; Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Karle, S.J.; et al. Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P. Perception of plant species richness by people with different nationalities—An experimental study. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 482–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botzat, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Kowarik, I. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen, A.; Hitchmough, J.; Calvert, T. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunter, M.R.; Hunter, M.D. Designing for conservation of insects in the built environment. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2008, 1, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaplan, R. Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: The wild and the tame. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassauer, J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc. J. 1995, 14, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Bose, E. How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 36, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tanner, T. Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 1980, 11, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colléony, A.; Prévot, A.-C.; Saint Jalme, M.; Clayton, S. What kind of landscape management can counteract the extinction of experience? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 159, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wells, N.M.; Lekies, K.S. Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Child. Youth Environ. 2006, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Shwartz, A.; Cheval, H.; Simon, L.; Julliard, R. Virtual garden computer program for use in exploring the elements of biodiversity people want in cities. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 876–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hofmann, M.; Westermann, J.R.; Kowarik, I.; Van der Meer, E. Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todorova, A.; Asakawa, S.; Aikoh, T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klimeczek, H.J. Umweltgerechtigkeit im Land Berlin–Zur methodischen Entwicklung des zweistufigen Berliner Umweltgerechtigkeitsmonitorings. UMID 2014, 2, 16–22. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Claßen, T.; Heiler, A.; Brei, B.; Hornberg, C. Stadtgrün und Gesundheit–ein Beitrag zur Debatte um soziale und räumliche Ungleichheit. UMID 2011, 2, 100–104. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Lubbe, C.S.; Siebert, S.J.; Cilliers, S.S. Political legacy of South Africa affects the plant diversity patterns of urban domestic gardens along a socio-economic gradient. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 2900–2910. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, C.A.; Warren, P.S.; Kinzig, A.P. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hope, D.; Gries, C.; Zhu, W.; Fagan, W.F.; Redman, C.L.; Grimm, N.B.; Nelson, A.L.; Martin, C.; Kinzig, A. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8788–8792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purcell, T.; Peron, E.; Berto, R. Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huynh, Q.; Craig, W.; Janssen, I.; Pickett, W. Exposure to public natural space as a protective factor for emotional well-being among young people in Canada. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Wheeler, B.W.; Depledge, M.H. Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 920–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haviland-Jones, J.; Rosario, H.H.; Wilson, P.; McGuire, T.R. An environmental approach to positive emotion: Flowers. Evol. Psychol. 2005, 3, 104–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P. ‘Loveable’mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 655–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heerwagen, J.H.; Orians, G.H. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In Biophilia Hypothesis; Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 138–172. [Google Scholar]
- Nassauer, J.I. The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care. HortScience 1988, 23, 973–977. [Google Scholar]
- Robert-Koch-Institut. Lebenszeitprävalenz von Heuschnupfen in Deutschland nach Altersgruppe im Jahr 2011; Statista, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2011. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Van Zanten, B.T.; Verburg, P.H.; Koetse, M.J.; van Beukering, P.J.H. Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soliva, R.; Bolliger, J.; Hunziker, M. Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landsc. Res. 2010, 35, 671–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunziker, M.; Felber, P.; Gehring, M.; Buchecker, M.; Bauer, N.; Kienast, F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jankovska, I.; Straupe, I.; Panagopoulos, T. Naturalistic forest landscape in urban areas: Challenges and solutions. In Proceedings of the 3rd WSEAS International Conference on Urban Planning and Transportation, Corfu, Greece, 22–24 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luederitz, C.; Brink, E.; Gralla, F.; Hermelingmeier, V.; Meyer, M.; Niven, L.; Panzer, L.; Partelow, S.; Rau, A.-L.; Sasaki, R. A review of urban ecosystem services: Six key challenges for future research. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 14, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- TEEB. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. 2011. Available online: www.teebweb.org (accessed on 1 November 2019).
- James, P.; Tzoulas, K.; Adams, M.D.; Barber, A.; Box, J.; Breuste, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Frith, M.; Gordon, C.; Greening, K.L. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, S.E.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, A.R.; Pauleit, S. Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ. 2007, 33, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Sullivan, O.S.; Holt, A.R.; Warren, P.H.; Evans, K.L. Optimising UK urban road verge contributions to biodiversity and ecosystem services with cost-effective management. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 191, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, F.; Kowarik, I.; Säumel, I. A walk on the wild side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aronson, M.F.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; Maclvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vierikko, K.; Elands, B.; Niemela, J.; Andersson, E.; Buijs, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Kowarik, I.; Luz, A.C. Considering the ways biocultural diversity helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 22, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Yuan, T. Public perceptions and preferences for wildflower meadows in Beijing, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brun, M.; Di Pietro, F.; Bonthoux, S. Residents’ perceptions and valuations of urban wastelands are influenced by vegetation structure. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathey, J.; Arndt, T.; Banse, J.; Rink, D. Public perception of spontaneous vegetation on brownfields in urban areas—Results from surveys in Dresden and Leipzig (Germany). Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgström, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Angelstam, P.; Alfsen-Norodom, C. Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valkó, O.; Deák, B.; Török, P.; Kirmer, A.; Tischew, S.; Kelemen, A.; Tóth, K.; Miglécz, T.; Radócz, S.; Sonkoly, J. High-diversity sowing in establishment gaps: A promising new tool for enhancing grassland biodiversity. Tuexenia 2016, 36, 359–378. [Google Scholar]
- Nassauer, J.I. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 65–83. [Google Scholar]
- BMZ. Perspektiven der Urbanisierung—Städte Nachhaltig Gestalten; BMZ-Informationsbroschüre 3, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Öffentlichkeits-, Informations- und Bildungsarbeit: Berlin, Germany, 2014. (In German) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J. Urban sustainability: An inevitable goal of landscape research. Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klugman, J. Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. UNDP-HDRO Human Development Reports. 2011. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294671 (accessed on 6 February 2020).
- Garritt, J. ‘Now Who Decided That?’: Experts and the public in biodiversity conservation. In Proceedings of the PATH Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 4–7 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Özgüner, H.; Kendle, A.D. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 74, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balram, S.; Dragićević, S. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 71, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breuste, J.H. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 439–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (Ed.) Landschaft 2020. Analysen und Trends; Grundlage zum Leitbild des BUWAL für Natur und Landschaft. Schriftenreihe Umwelt 352: Berne, Switzerland, 2003; (In German with English summary). [Google Scholar]
- Lazo, J.K.; Kinnell, J.; Bussa, T.; Fisher, A.; Collamer, N. Expert and lay mental models of ecosystems: Inferences for risk communication. RISK: Health Saf. Environ. 1999, 10, 45–64. [Google Scholar]
- Zaunbrecher, B.S.; Ziefle, M. Integrating acceptance-relevant factors into wind power planning: A discussion. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2727–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Age | Gender | Has Children | Student | Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | Self-Perception | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | II. | III. | IV. | Male | Female | N/A | Yes | No | Yes | No | I. | II. | III. | IV. | V. | VI. | VII. | Yes | No | N/A | Country Type | City Type | N/A | |
Total | 73 | 665 | 151 | 27 | 289 | 625 | 2 | 149 | 767 | 615 | 301 | 21 | 19 | 63 | 174 | 26 | 58 | 253 | 492 | 418 | 6 | 569 | 329 | 18 |
% | 8.0 | 72.6 | 16.5 | 2.9 | 31.6 | 68.2 | 0.2 | 16.3 | 83.7 | 67.1 | 32.9 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 10.3 | 28.3 | 4.2 | 9.5 | 41.2 | 53.7 | 45.6 | 0.7 | 62.1 | 35.9 | 2.0 |
Gender | Student | Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | No | II. | III. | VI. | VII. | Yes | No | |
Unnatural Green Space with an Acceptance Stripe (1E) | 7 (−2.5) | |||||||
Unnatural Green Space (1F) | 30 (2.1) | |||||||
Lawn (1G) | 10 (2.4) | 10 (−2.1) | ||||||
Lawn (1H) | 29 (3.0) | 4 (2.2) | 15 (−2.5) | 37 (2.7) |
Age | Gender | Has Children | Student | Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | Self-Perception | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | III. | Male | Female | Yes | Yes | No | II. | IV. | V. | VII. | Yes | No | City Type | |
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.1B) | 198 (−2.1) | |||||||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Pathway (2.1F) | 109 (−2.2) | |||||||||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.1G) | 10 (−2.9) | 71 (3.6) | 77 (−2.4) | 13 (−2.3) | 123 (2.4) | 25 (−3.4) | 14 (5.0) | 33 (−2.5) | 73 (2.7) | |||||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.1H) | 30 (4.0) | 14 (−2.9) | 82 (3.3) | 98 (−2.2) | 38 (−2.8) | 15 (3.5) | 72 (−2.5) | 108 (2.8) | ||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.1I) | 11 (−2.3) | 38 (2.1) | 47 (−2.7) | 82 (3.0) |
Age | Has Children | Student | Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | Self-Perception | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
III. | Yes | Yes | No | I. | II. | III. | VI. | Yes | No | Country Type | City Type | |
Meadow, Large Forecourt (2.2A) | 4 (3.1) | |||||||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.2B) | 82 (2.4) | 127 (2.4) | 63 (−2.6) | |||||||||
Meadow, Pathway (2.2C) | 66 (4.5) | 57 (3.1) | 126 (−2.3) | 105 (3.3) | 160(3.2) | 71 (−3.4) | ||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Large Forecourt (2.2D) | 6 (−2.3) | |||||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Small Forecourt (2.2E) | 17 (2.3) | |||||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Pathway (2.2F) | 336 (3.1) | 189 (−3.3) | ||||||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.2G) | 8 (2.8) | 56 (−2.4) | 86 (2.5) | 68 (−2.2) | 68 (2.3) | |||||||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.2H) | 49 (2.7) | 19 (−2.1) | 219 (−2.5) | 260 (2.7) | ||||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.2I) | 72 (−3.1) | 165 (−2.8) | 294 (−2.2) | 324 (2.4) |
Age | Gender | Has Children | Student | Faculty | Commitment to Conservation | Self-Perception | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
II. | III. | IV. | Male | Female | Yes | Yes | No | II. | III. | V. | VI. | VII. | Yes | No | City Type | |
Meadow, Large Forecourt (2.3A) | 100 (2.2) | 49 (−2.3) | ||||||||||||||
Meadow, Small Forecourt (2.3B) | 109 (−2.7) | 60 (4.9) | 13 (2.9) | 55 (4.2) | 99 (−2.7) | 94 (3.8) | 49 (−2.5) | |||||||||
Meadow, Pathway (2.3C) | 47 (2.2) | 13 (2.7) | 84 (2.3) | 85 (2.1) | 5 (−2.2) | 67 (2.3) | 141 (2.8) | 66 (−3.0) | ||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Large Forecourt (2.3D) | 44 (2.4) | |||||||||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Small Forecourt (2.3E) | 13 (2.2) | 1 (−2.1) | 74 (2.1) | 148 (2.1) | 84 (−2.2) | 103 (2.1) | ||||||||||
Meadow with an Acceptance Stripe, Pathway (2.3F) | 96 (−2.1) | |||||||||||||||
Lawn, Large Forecourt (2.3G) | 46 (−2.1) | 156 (3.4) | 218 (−2.4) | 45 (−2.1) | 290 (2.4) | 86 (−3.4) | 16 (2.3) | 15 (−2.4) | 156 (−3.1) | 214 (3.4) | ||||||
Lawn, Small Forecourt (2.3H) | 6 (−3.1) | 171 (−2.3) | 302 (−2.4) | 338 (2.5) | ||||||||||||
Lawn, Pathway (2.3I) | 40 (−4.8) | 122 (−2.2) | 231 (−2.4) | 269 (2.5) |
Age | Gender | Has Children | Student | Faculty | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I. | II. | III. | Male | Yes | Yes | No | I. | II. | IV. | V. | |
Lawn without Trees Bench (3A) | ii: 10 (3.4) | i: 5 (2.7) | |||||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench, Lanterns (3B) | i: 1 (−2.4) ii: 1 (−2.1) | i: 5 (−2.5) | ii: 5 (3.8) | i: 4 (2.5) | |||||||
Lawn without Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3C) | i: 21 (3.0) ii: 9 (2.2) | ii: 2 (3.5) | i: 15 (3.0) | ||||||||
Lawn with Trees Bench, Lanterns (3E) | i: 21 (−2.5) | ii: 86 (−2.3) | i: 23 (−2.1) | ||||||||
Lawn with Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3F) | ii: 35 (3.0) | ||||||||||
Meadow without Trees Bench (3G) | ii: 14 (−2.1) | ||||||||||
Meadow without Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3I) | i: 46 (2.8) ii: 23 (2.8) | ||||||||||
Meadow with Trees Bench (3J) | ii: 9 (−2.1) | ||||||||||
Meadow with Trees Bench, Lanterns, Sculpture (3L) | i: 41 (−2.2) | i: 30 (4.7) ii: 16 (3.1) | i: 23 (2.8) | i: 32 (−2.9) | i: 47 (4.1) ii: 25 (2.5) |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zobec, M.; Betz, O.; Unterweger, P.A. Perception of Urban Green Areas Associated with Sociodemographic Affiliation, Structural Elements, and Acceptance Stripes. Urban Sci. 2020, 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4010009
Zobec M, Betz O, Unterweger PA. Perception of Urban Green Areas Associated with Sociodemographic Affiliation, Structural Elements, and Acceptance Stripes. Urban Science. 2020; 4(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4010009
Chicago/Turabian StyleZobec, Marco, Oliver Betz, and Philipp Andreas Unterweger. 2020. "Perception of Urban Green Areas Associated with Sociodemographic Affiliation, Structural Elements, and Acceptance Stripes" Urban Science 4, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4010009
APA StyleZobec, M., Betz, O., & Unterweger, P. A. (2020). Perception of Urban Green Areas Associated with Sociodemographic Affiliation, Structural Elements, and Acceptance Stripes. Urban Science, 4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4010009