IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i17p4565-d260034.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Danger and Landscape Preferences of Walking Paths with Trees and Shrubs by Women

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandra Lis

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Grunwaldzka 55, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Łukasz Pardela

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Grunwaldzka 55, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Wu Can

    (Horticulture & Landscape College, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410000, China)

  • Anna Katlapa

    (Faculty of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Lielā iela 2, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Łukasz Rąbalski

    (Institute of Psychology, University of Gdańsk, Jana Bażyńskiego 4, 80-309 Gdańsk, Poland)

Abstract

There have been many studies on the impact of urban greenery on perceived danger and preferences, but not many have been conducted in non-English speaking countries. We carried out our research among female university students in Poland, Latvia and China ( n = 243), using a photograph rating survey instrument, and presenting slides presenting park landscapes. We compared the impact of the presence of trees and shrubs and their capability of offering concealment, as well as perceived space use intensity on perceived danger and preferences in all three countries. Participants rated the presence of shrubs as a more positive influence on path use intensity and as a negative influence on perceived danger. The link between tree presence and perceived danger in Poland and Latvia is small as well as insignificant in China. In addition, perceived danger turned out to be a mediator of the relations between the presence of trees and shrubs and perceived path use intensity and preference. Our findings support the idea that vegetation in parks could be shaped so that it does not provide place to hide. However, this recommendation is primarily applicable to areas in which the variable ‘perceived danger’ is of importance.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4565-:d:260034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4565/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4565/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jolanda Maas & Peter Spreeuwenberg & Marijke van Winsum-Westra & Robert A Verheij & Sjerp Vries & Peter P Groenewegen, 2009. "Is Green Space in the Living Environment Associated with People's Feelings of Social Safety?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(7), pages 1763-1777, July.
    2. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    3. Michelle Kondo & Bernadette Hohl & SeungHoon Han & Charles Branas, 2016. "Effects of greening and community reuse of vacant lots on crime," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(15), pages 3279-3295, November.
    4. Virginia Harris & Dave Kendal & Amy K. Hahs & Caragh G. Threlfall, 2018. "Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 150-162, January.
    5. Lincoln R Larson & Viniece Jennings & Scott A Cloutier, 2016. "Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Gau, Jacinta M. & Pratt, Travis C., 2010. "Revisiting Broken Windows Theory: Examining the Sources of the Discriminant Validity of Perceived Disorder and Crime," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 758-766, July.
    7. Jacquelin Burgess & Carolyn M. Harrison & Melanie Limb, 1988. "People, Parks and the Urban Green: A Study of Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 25(6), pages 455-473, December.
    8. 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. Kinga Kimic & Paulina Polko, 2022. "The Use of Urban Parks by Older Adults in the Context of Perceived Security," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Aleksandra Lis & Łukasz Pardela & Paweł Iwankowski, 2019. "Impact of Vegetation on Perceived Safety and Preference in City Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Mohammad Paydar & Asal Kamani Fard & Verónica Gárate Navarrete, 2023. "Design Characteristics, Visual Qualities, and Walking Behavior in an Urban Park Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Katinka H. Evensen & Helena Nordh & Ramzi Hassan & Aslak Fyhri, 2021. "Testing the Effect of Hedge Height on Perceived Safety—A Landscape Design Intervention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Ruochen Ma & Yuxin Luo & Katsunori Furuya, 2023. "Gender Differences and Optimizing Women’s Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Visual Behavior While Viewing Urban Park Landscapes in Tokyo, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Xueying Wu & Yi Lu & Jingjing Wang & Bin Jiang, 2023. "Built Environment in Urban Space Affect Protests: A Cross-Sectional Study in Hong Kong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Markéta Braun Kohlová & Petra Nepožitková & Jan Melichar, 2021. "How Do Observable Characteristics of Post-Mining Forests Affect Their Attractiveness for Recreation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    8. 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.

    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. Kubiszewski, Ida & Jarvis, Diane & Zakariyya, Nabeeh, 2019. "Spatial variations in contributors to life satisfaction: An Australian case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Taylor, Ralph B. & Haberman, Cory P. & Groff, Elizabeth R., 2019. "Urban park crime: Neighborhood context and park features," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Aleksandra Lis & Łukasz Pardela & Paweł Iwankowski, 2019. "Impact of Vegetation on Perceived Safety and Preference in City Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    5. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    6. Zhen Li & Wanmin Zhao & Miaoyao Nie, 2021. "Scale Characteristics and Optimization of Park Green Space in Megacities Based on the Fractal Measurement Model: A Case Study of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    11. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    14. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    15. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Moreno-Llorca, R. & Vaz, A.S. & Herrero, J. & Millares, A. & Bonet-García, F.J. & Alcaraz-Segura, D., 2020. "Multi-scale evolution of ecosystem services’ supply in Sierra Nevada (Spain): An assessment over the last half-century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    17. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    18. Caudill, Jonathan W. & Getty, Ryan & Smith, Rick & Patten, Ryan & Trulson, Chad R., 2013. "Discouraging window breakers: The lagged effects of police activity on crime," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 18-23.
    19. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    20. Huiying Ng, 2020. "Recognising the edible urban commons: Cultivating latent capacities for transformative governance in Singapore," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(7), pages 1417-1433, May.

    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:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4565-:d:260034. 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.