IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i5p701-d810791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People’s Attitudes and Emotions towards Different Urban Forest Types in the Berlin Region, Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Lippert

    (Department of Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, D-12165 Berlin, Germany)

  • Ingo Kowarik

    (Department of Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
    Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany)

  • Tanja M. Straka

    (Department of Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, D-12165 Berlin, Germany
    Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), D-14195 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

In an era of urbanization, forests are a key component of the urban green infrastructure, providing multiple benefits to urban residents. While emerging forests on urban wasteland could increase the urban forest area, it is unclear how residents view such novel forest types. In a comparative self-administered online survey, we assessed attitudes and emotions of residents ( n = 299) from the Berlin region, Germany, towards forest types that represent transformation stages from natural to novel forests: (1) natural remnants, (2) silvicultural plantings, (3) park forests and (4) novel wild forests in wastelands. Respondents expressed positive attitudes and emotions towards all forest types, including the novel wild forest. Ratings were most positive towards natural remnants and least positive towards the novel wild forest. The indicated prevalence of non-native trees ( Ailanthus altissima , Robinia pseudoacacia ) did not evoke negative responses. Women and younger people were more positive towards the novel wild forest compared to other respondents, and men were most positive towards natural remnants. Place attachment was positively related to the park forest. Results indicate support for a wide range of forest types, including novel wild forests and non-native tree species, which can be used to expand urban forest areas and enhance opportunities for nature experience in cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Lippert & Ingo Kowarik & Tanja M. Straka, 2022. "People’s Attitudes and Emotions towards Different Urban Forest Types in the Berlin Region, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:701-:d:810791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/701/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/701/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    3. Linjia Wu & Qidi Dong & Shixian Luo & Wenyuan Jiang & Ming Hao & Qibing Chen, 2021. "Effects of Spatial Elements of Urban Landscape Forests on the Restoration Potential and Preference of Adolescents," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Trentanovi, Giovanni & Campagnaro, Thomas & Kowarik, Ingo & Munafò, Michele & Semenzato, Paolo & Sitzia, Tommaso, 2021. "Integrating spontaneous urban woodlands into the green infrastructure: Unexploited opportunities for urban regeneration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    6. Dieter Rink & Catrin Schmidt, 2021. "Afforestation of Urban Brownfields as a Nature-Based Solution. Experiences from a Project in Leipzig (Germany)," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Vaz, Ana S. & Kueffer, Christoph & Kull, Christian A. & Richardson, David M. & Vicente, Joana R. & Kühn, Ingolf & Schröter, Matthias & Hauck, Jennifer & Bonn, Aletta & Honrado, João P., 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 94-107.
    8. Ping Liu & Mengnan Liu & Tingting Xia & Yutao Wang & Hongxu Wei, 2021. "Can Urban Forest Settings Evoke Positive Emotion? Evidence on Facial Expressions and Detection of Driving Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Mojca Nastran & Marina Pintar & Špela Železnikar & Rozalija Cvejić, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Role of Urban Green Infrastructure in Providing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    11. Ingo Kowarik & Anne Hiller & Greg Planchuelo & Birgit Seitz & Moritz von der Lippe & Sascha Buchholz, 2019. "Emerging Urban Forests: Opportunities for Promoting the Wild Side of the Urban Green Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-27, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Marijke Huysmans & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298795, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Nicholaus Mwageni & Gabriel Kassenga, 2022. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Green Space Investment in Residential Areas of Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(3), pages 157-157, May.
    4. Johnson, Daniel & Geisendorf, Sylvie, 2019. "Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of the Economic Value of Sustainable Urban Drainage System Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit Analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 194-205.
    5. Stessens, Philip & Canters, Frank & Huysmans, Marijke & Khan, Ahmed Z., 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    7. Iwona Szumacher & Piotr Pabjanek, 2017. "Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Services in European Cities in the Continental Biogeographical Region in the Period from 1990–2012," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Maria Ignatieva & Duy Khiem Tran & Rosangela Tenorio, 2023. "Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    10. Andrzej Długoński & Thilo Wellmann & Dagmar Haase, 2023. "Old-Growth Forests in Urban Nature Reserves: Balancing Risks for Visitors and Biodiversity Protection in Warsaw, Poland," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, January.
    11. Jonah L. Landor-Yamagata & Ingo Kowarik & Leonie K. Fischer, 2018. "Urban Foraging in Berlin: People, Plants and Practices within the Metropolitan Green Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    12. von Döhren, Peer & Haase, Dagmar, 2019. "Risk assessment concerning urban ecosystem disservices: The example of street trees in Berlin, Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Ja, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    14. Karsten Grunewald & Benjamin Richter & Martin Behnisch, 2019. "Multi-Indicator Approach for Characterising Urban Green Space Provision at City and City-District Level in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-20, June.
    15. Zhichao Li & Tianqu Shao, 2019. "An Improved Ecological Services Valuation Model in Land Use Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Gretchen M. Luchauer & Stephanie Freeman-Day & Burnell C. Fischer, 2023. "Urban Stream Corridors and Forest Patches—The Connections: A Case Study of Bloomington, IN," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    18. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    19. Sergio Cappucci & Serena Nappi & Andrea Cappelli, 2022. "Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    20. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:701-:d:810791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.