IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6324-d285802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Vegetation on Perceived Safety and Preference in City Parks

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)

  • Paweł Iwankowski

    (Independent Researcher, Aleja Grunwaldzka 141, 80-264 Gdańsk, Poland)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of safety-related environmental characteristics in a city park on users’ preferences and whether this impact can be explained by perceived safety. The factors examined were physical and visual accessibility as well as the effectiveness of concealment created by plants in various spatial systems. We used 112 photographs taken in city parks for the study. Studies have shown that visual and physical accessibility varies in terms of impact on preferences and safety—as a result, we tested only visual accessibility and effectiveness. Correlation and regression analyses confirmed that vegetation in a park that obstructs views and can offer concealment reduces our sense of safety. In addition, such vegetation has a negative effect on preference. However, mediation analysis showed that this sense of safety or danger means that dense vegetation (low visual accessibility yet highly effective in offering concealment) is less preferred as a landscape feature. After excluding the impact brought to bear by the sense of safety, the studied features of vegetation had no significant impact on preferences. This means that plants and vegetation layouts of varying densities can be used in completely safe parks and this will probably not adversely affect the feelings of the users.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6324-:d:285802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6324/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6324/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Mei Liu & Olaf Schroth, 2019. "Assessment of Aesthetic Preferences in Relation to Vegetation-Created Enclosure in Chinese Urban Parks: A Case Study of Shenzhen Litchi Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. 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.
    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. Shixian Luo & Jing Xie & Katsunori Furuya, 2021. "Assessing the Preference and Restorative Potential of Urban Park Blue Space," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Irena Niedźwiecka-Filipiak & Justyna Rubaszek & Anna Podolska & Jowita Pyszczek, 2020. "Sectoral Analysis of Landscape Interiors (SALI) as One of the Tools for Monitoring Changes in Green Infrastructure Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Fengrui Jing & Lin Liu & Suhong Zhou & Guangwen Song, 2020. "Examining the Relationship between Hukou Status, Perceived Neighborhood Conditions, and Fear of Crime in Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Angeliki Paraskevopoulou & Andreas Klados & Chrysovalantis Malesios, 2020. "Historical Public Parks: Investigating Contemporary Visitor Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Kelei Li & Wenpeng Du & Zhiqi Yang & Huimin Yan & Yutong Mu, 2024. "Spatio-Temporal Pattern of Urban Green Space in Chengdu Urban Center under Rapid Urbanization: From the Policy-Oriented Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, March.
    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. 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.
    5. Dumenu, William Kwadwo, 2013. "What are we missing? Economic value of an urban forest in Ghana," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 137-142.
    6. 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.
    7. Elizelle Juaneé Cilliers & Wim Timmermans, 2015. "An Integrative Approach to Value-Added Planning: From Community Needs to Local Authority Revenue," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 675-687, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Lennon, Mick & Douglas, Owen & Scott, Mark, 2019. "Responsive environments: An outline of a method for determining context sensitive planning interventions to enhance health and wellbeing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 68-78.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Wilkerson, Marit L. & Mitchell, Matthew G.E. & Shanahan, Danielle & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Ives, Christopher D. & Lovelock, Catherine E. & Rhodes, Jonathan R., 2018. "The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 102-110.
    14. 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.
    15. Brown, Tim & Bell, Morag, 2007. "Off the couch and on the move: Global public health and the medicalisation of nature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1343-1354, March.
    16. Rojas, Carolina & Páez, Antonio & Barbosa, Olga & Carrasco, Juan, 2016. "Accessibility to urban green spaces in Chilean cities using adaptive thresholds," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 227-240.
    17. Yuanyuan Luo & Jun He & Yuelin Long & Lu Xu & Liang Zhang & Zhuoran Tang & Chun Li & Xingyao Xiong, 2023. "The Relationship between the Color Landscape Characteristics of Autumn Plant Communities and Public Aesthetics in Urban Parks in Changsha, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, February.
    18. Wu, Zhen & Chen, Ruishan & Meadows, Michael E. & Sengupta, Dhritiraj & Xu, Di, 2019. "Changing urban green spaces in Shanghai: trends, drivers and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Mengyao Wang & Yu Yan & Mingxuan Li & Long Zhou, 2024. "Differences in Emotional Preferences toward Urban Green Spaces among Various Cultural Groups in Macau and Their Influencing Factors," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Xiaoqi Feng & Thomas Astell-Burt, 2022. "Perceived Qualities, Visitation and Felt Benefits of Preferred Nature Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: A Nationally-Representative Cross-Sectional Study of 2940 Adults," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.

    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:22:p:6324-:d:285802. 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.