IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7615-d590288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Naturalness in the City: Demographic Groups’ Differences in Preference for Deciduous Landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Rong Fan

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Junxi Fan

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Jiayu Song

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Kaiyuan Li

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Wenli Ji

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

Abstract

In the past few years, deciduous landscape conservation has become a trend in China; however, the theoretical support is still limited, and the impact of demographic characteristics on people’s attitude toward deciduous landscape still needs to be explained. This study aimed at exploring the differences among demographic groups through Likert scale questionnaires of 981 respondents. The results show that of all characteristics, only age has a significant influence on deciduous landscape preference. However, there is a paradox for elderly people: they have the highest preference for deciduous landscape and the lowest intention to keep deciduous landscape in their lives at the same time. Moreover, the elderly tend to care about the underlying surface of deciduous landscape while the reliable predictor for other age groups is the color of fallen leaves. These findings can be useful for practical applications, which might guide future development of deciduous landscape planning and maintenance.

Suggested Citation

  • Rong Fan & Junxi Fan & Jiayu Song & Kaiyuan Li & Wenli Ji, 2021. "Naturalness in the City: Demographic Groups’ Differences in Preference for Deciduous Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7615-:d:590288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7615/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7615/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    2. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    3. Molnarova, Kristina & Sklenicka, Petr & Stiborek, Jiri & Svobodova, Kamila & Salek, Miroslav & Brabec, Elizabeth, 2012. "Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 269-278.
    4. Aleksandra Lis & Łukasz Pardela & Wu Can & Anna Katlapa & Łukasz Rąbalski, 2019. "Perceived Danger and Landscape Preferences of Walking Paths with Trees and Shrubs by Women," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Kati Häfner & Ingo Zasada & Boris T. van Zanten & Fabrizio Ungaro & Mark Koetse & Annette Piorr, 2018. "Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 846-861, August.
    6. Shu Lin Shi & Chau Ming Tong & Clare Cooper Marcus, 2019. "What makes a garden in the elderly care facility well used?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 256-269, February.
    7. Escobedo, Francisco J. & Clerici, Nicola & Staudhammer, Christina L. & Feged-Rivadeneira, Alejandro & Bohorquez, Juan Camilo & Tovar, German, 2018. "Trees and Crime in Bogota, Colombia: Is the link an ecosystem disservice or service?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 583-592.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esperanza Ayuga-Téllez & Juan José Ramírez-Montoro & Maria Ángeles Grande-Ortiz & Diego Muñoz-Violero, 2021. "Differences in Visual Preference in Rural Landscapes on the Plain of La Mancha in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-15, December.

    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. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    2. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    3. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    4. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    5. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    7. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Tong, Qingmeng & Qiu, Feng, 2020. "Population growth and land development: Investigating the bi-directional interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    11. Rolf, Werner & Diehl, Katharina & Zasada, Ingo & Wiggering, Hubert, 2020. "Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    15. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    16. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    17. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    18. Huan Yang & Ling Qiu & Xin Fu, 2021. "Toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability through Participatory Planning Based on Investigation of the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes: Qing Mu Chuan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, January.
    19. Zheng Xian & Tomoki Nakaya & Kun Liu & Bing Zhao & Junhua Zhang & Jiao Zhang & Yuxuan Lin & Jinguang Zhang, 2024. "The effects of neighbourhood green spaces on mental health of disadvantaged groups: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Cathal Buckley & Peter Howley & Cathal O'Donoghue & Paul Kilgarriff, 2016. "Willingness to Pay For Achieving Good Status Across Rivers in the Republic of Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 47(3), pages 425-445.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7615-:d:590288. 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.