Perception of urban parks: the influence of topography, vegetation density and park attributes on perceived safety, mystery and preference
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2025.1133Keywords:
perceived safety, preference analysis, Kaplan preference model, urban research, landscape architectureAbstract
In this study we analysed how topography, vegetation density and selected park attributes influence features such as coherence, complexity, legibility, mystery, sense of safety and preference in the context of natural-looking urban parks. We also examined relationships with other landscape features that may affect preference. We employed a withinsubjects design where participants evaluated a set of 108 eye-level computer generated photorealistic visualisations of park environments. Our sample comprised 200 participants (118 females and 82 males). Our findings suggest that flat terrain is perceived as safer. Dense vegetation increases the sense of mystery, while sparse vegetation was conducted for safety and legibility. The presence of plants in bloom and park architecture, and furniture were most preferred features of the park landscapes we studied. Park landscapes with plenty of light and visible sky were perceived as safer, while landscapes with less light and sky were thought to be more mysterious. The strongest predictors of Kaplan preference model preference were legibility, complexity and coherence. The greater the coherence and readability, the more the landscape was preferred. Landscape complexity positively influenced preference. Our findings indicate the complexity of the relationship between topography, vegetation and landscape preference, emphasising their relevance when designing attractive and safe parks with a natural feel.
References
Al Shawabkeh, R., & Arar, M. 2024. The role of virtual reality in improving neighborhood park design: A comparative study of virtual reality and traditional approaches. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 12(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.02.001
Altman, I. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior. Brooks/ Cole Pub. Co.
Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. John Wiley. Appleton, J. 1996. The Experience of Landscape. John Wiley.
Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. 2011. Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach. Landscape Research, 36(1), 19–40. https://doi. org/10.1080/01426397.2010.536204
Asadpour, A. 2017. Re-designing Urban Stream Landscape by Investigating the Citizens’ Preference Matrix. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5(4), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2017.050404
Bashir, O., Badiora, W., Olaleye, D., Akinlotan, P., & Adebara, T. 2019. Perceived personal safety in built environment facilities: A Nigerian case study of urban recreation sites. 25, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.11.002
Bergen, S. D., Ulbricht, C. A., Fridley, J. L., & Ganter, M. A. 1995. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90021-7
Berlyne, D. E., Daniel E. 1974. Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere Pub. Corp.
Bishop, I. D., & Leahy, P. N. A. 1989. Assessing the Visual Impact of Development Proposals: The Validity of Computer Simulations. Landscape Journal, 8(2), 92–100. JSTOR.
Bishop, I. D., & Rohrmann, B. 2003. Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00070-7
Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. 2006. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006
Błaszczyk, M., Suchocka, M., & Maksymiuk, G. 2017. Kultura czy natura? Mechanizmy percepcji i preferencji wobec krajobrazu i form roślinnych. Prace Komisji Krajobrazu Kulturowego, 36, 21–32.
Borysiak, J., & Stępniewska, M. 2022. Perception of the Vegetation Cover Pattern Promoting Biodiversity in Urban Parks by Future Greenery Managers. Land, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030341
Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Chrobak, G., Aslanoğlu, R., Lubańska, A., Kowalczyk, T., Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K., Szewrański, S., & Kazak, J. K. 2024. Graph Enhanced Co-Occurrence: Deep dive into urban park soundscape. Ecological Indicators, 165, 112172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112172
Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Our Visual Landscape: analysis, modeling, visualization and protection, 54(1), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4
El-Metwally, Y., Khalifa, M., & Elshater, A. 2021. Quantitative study for applying prospect-refuge theory on perceived safety in Al-Azhar Park, Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(4), 4247–4260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.04.016
Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. L. 1992. Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592241002
Franěk, M. 2023. Landscape Preference: The Role of Attractiveness and Spatial Openness of the Environment. Behavioral Sciences, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080666
Fu, Y., Yang, J., Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Xue, J., Zeng, Y., & Li, F. 2024. Reassessing urban park accessibility: An improved two-step floating catchment area method based on the physical activity services perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 101, 128446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128446
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. 2007. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Gimblett, H. R., Itami, R. M., & Fitzgibbon, J. E. 1985. Mystery in an Information Processing Model of Landscape Preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87–95. JSTOR.
Haans, A., & Kort, Y. A. W. de. 2012. Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 342– 352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.05.006
Häfner, K., Zasada, I., van Zanten, B. T., Ungaro, F., Koetse, M., & Piorr, A. 201). Assessing landscape preferences: A visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landscape Research, 43(6), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289
Hagerhall, C. M. 2000. Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0150
Hägerhäll, C. M., Ode Sang, Å., Englund, J.-E., Ahlner, F., Rybka, K., Huber, J., & Burenhult, N. 2018. Do Humans Really Prefer Semi-open Natural Landscapes? A Cross-Cultural Reappraisal. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.00822
Han, K.-T. 2007. Responses to Six Major Terrestrial Biomes in Terms of Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 529–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506292016
Hands, D. E., & Brown, R. D. 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landsc. Urban Planning., 58(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00240-7
Harris, V., Kendal, D., Hahs, A. K., & Threlfall, C. G. 2018. Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens. Landscape Research, 43(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1302571
Herzog, T. R. 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80024-6
Herzog, T. R. 1992. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237–248.
Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. 2007. Mystery and Preference in Within-Forest Settings. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 779–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298796
Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. 2001. Preference and Perceived Danger as a Function of the Perceived Curvature, Length, and Width of Urban Alleys. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973179
Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. 1982. The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01359051
Herzog, T. R., & Kirk, K. M. 2005. Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors ofpreference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 620–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505275306
Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. S. 2004. Legibility, Mystery, and Visual Access as Predictors of Preference and Perceived Danger in Forest Settings without Pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 659–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504264138
Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. 2003. Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 459–477.
Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. 1998. The Role of Mystery in Perceived Danger and Environmental Preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000401
Herzog, T., & Smith, G. A. 1988. Danger, Mystery, and Environmental Preference. Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 320–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588203004
Hwang, Y. H., Yue, Z. E. J., Ling, S. K., & Tan, H. H. V. 2019. It’s ok to be wilder: Preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.005
Jiang, B., Chang, C.-Y., & Sullivan, W. C. 2014. A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.005
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Calvert, T. 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(3), 135– 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00052-X
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. 1989. Environmental PreferenceA Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
Khaledi, H. J., Khakzand, M., & Faizi, M. 2022. Landscape and Perception: A systematic review. Landscape Online, 97, 1098. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2022.1098
Klopp, B., & Mealey, L. 1998. Experimental mood manipulation does not induce change in preference for natural landscapes. Human Nature, 9(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-998-1016-z
Kuper, R. 2017. Evaluations of landscape preference, complexity, and coherence for designed digital landscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.002
Kurz, T., & Baudains, C. 2012. Biodiversity in the Front Yard: An Investigation of Landscape Preference in a Domestic Urban Context. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 166–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385542
Lee, K. “Jerry”, Aronson, M. F. J., Clark, J. A. G., Hoover, F.-A., Joo, H. E., Kremer, P., La Rosa, D., Larson, K. L., Lepczyk, C. A., Lerman, S. B., Locke, D. H., Nilon, C. H., Pearsall, H., & Vargo, T. L. V. 2024. Limitations of existing park quality instruments and suggestions for future research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 249, 105127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105127
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., & Matthies, D. 2010. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003
Ling, Z., Perumal, V., Li, M., Rahman, A., Yahaya, M., & Tualeka, A. 2023. Development of Urban Park Public Seating Design Strategies in the Post-pandemic Era. SHS Web of Conferences, 158. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202315801009
Lis, A., & Iwankowski, P. 2021a. Where do we want to see other people while relaxing in a city park? Visual relationships with park users and their impact on preferences, safety and privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101532
Lis, A., & Iwankowski, P. 2021b. Why is dense vegetation in city parks unpopular? The mediative role of sense of privacy and safety. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 126988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.126988
Lis, A., & Karolina, Z. 2024. Surveillance as a variable explaining why other people’s presence in a park setting affects sense of safety and preferences. Landscape Online, 99, 1123. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2024.1123
Lis, A., Krzemińska, A., Dzikowska, A., & Zalewska, K. J. 2014. Spatial determinants of safety in a city park as exemplified by Jan III Sobieski Park in Wałbrzych (Poland).
Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., & Iwankowski, P. 2019. Impact of vegetation on perceived safety and preference in city parks. Sustainability, 11(22), 6324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226324
Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., Iwankowski, P., & Haans, A. 2021. The impact of plants offering cover on female students’ perception of danger in urban green spaces in crime hot spots. Landscape Online, 91, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.202191
Lis, A., Zalewska, K., & Grabowski, M. 2024. The ability to choose how to interact with other people in the park space and its role in terms of perceived safety and preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 102429. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102429
Lis, A., Zalewska, K., & Iwankowski, P. 2019. Why do we choose fear-evoking spots in parks? The role of danger and privacy in the model of dependence between spatial attributes and preference. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 193– 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.012
Lis, A., Zalewska, K., Iwankowski, P., Betkier, K., Bilska, P., Dudar, V., & Łągiewka, A. 2024. Evaluation of sense of safety and privacy in parks in relation to the topography, the presence of dense vegetation and other people in the area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 242, 104948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104948
Lis, A., Zalewska, K., Pardela, Ł., Adamczak, E., Cenarska, A., Bławicka, K., Brzegowa, B., & Matiiuk, A. 2022. How the amount of greenery in city parks impacts visitor preferences in the context of naturalness, legibility and perceived danger. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228, 104556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104556
Liu, M., & Nijhuis, S. 2020. Digital Methods for Mapping Landscape Spaces in Landscape Design (s. 645). https://doi.org/10.14627/537690065
Luck, G. W., Davidson, P., Boxall, D., & Smallbone, L. 2011. Relations between Urban Bird and Plant Communities and Human Well-Being and Connection to Nature. Conservation Biology, 25(4), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01685.x
Luo, S., Jiaying, S., Tingyu, L., & Furuya, K. 2021. Sit down and rest: Use of virtual reality to evaluate preferences and mental restoration in urban park pavilions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 220, 104336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104336
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of The City. MIT Press.
Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. C. K. van den. 2014. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces – A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.11.006
Maurice, A.-C., Deguines, N., & Baudry, E. 2025. Preference for more informal vegetation in urban parks: The impeding role of need for structure among the French population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 253. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105177
Mc Morran, R., Price, M. F., & Warren, C. R. 2008. The call of different wilds: The importance of definition and perception in protecting and managing Scottish wild landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701862955
Meidenbauer, K. L., Stenfors, C. U. D., Bratman, G. N., Gross, J. J., Schertz, K. E., Choe, K. W., & Berman, M. G. 2020. The affective benefits of nature exposure: What’s nature got to do with it? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101498
Mercadé-Aloy, J., & Cervera-Alonso-de-Medina, M. 2024. Enhancing Access to Urban Hill Parks: The Montjuïc Trail Masterplan and the 360° Route Design in Barcelona. Land, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010002
Mostajeran, F., Fischer, M., Steinicke, F., & Kühn, S. 2023. Effects of exposure to immersive computer-generated virtual nature and control environments on affect and cognition. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 220. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26750-6
Naghibi, M., Farrokhi, A., & Faizi, M. 2024. Small Urban Green Spaces: Insights into Perception, Preference, and Psychological Well-being in a Densely Populated Areas of Tehran, Iran. Environmental Health Insights, 18, 11786302241248314. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241248314
Nasar, J. L., & Cubukcu, E. 2011. Evaluative Appraisals of Environmental Mystery and Surprise. Environment and Behavior, 43(3), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364500
Nassauer, J. I. 1995. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames.
Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161–170. JSTOR.
Nassauer, J. I., Webster, N. J., Sampson, N., & Li, J. 2021. Care and safety in neighborhood preferences for vacant lot greenspace in legacy cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104156
Nazemi Rafi, Z., Kazemi, F., & Tehranifar, A. 2020. Public preferences toward water-wise landscape design in a summer season. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 48, 126563–126572.
Newell, P. B. 1997. A Cross-Cultural Examination of Favorite Places. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900403
Ozer, B. K., & Bariş, M. E. 2013. Landscape Design and Park Users’ Preferences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 604–607.
Pardela, Ł., Lis, A., & Zalewska, K. 2023. Impact of danger, legibility and mystery on visitor’s preference in fortified landscapes compared with park landscapes in urban areas. Landscape Online, 98, 1118. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2023.1118
Pardela, Ł., Lis, A., Zalewska, K., & Iwankowski, P. 2022a. Hide and seek? How vegetation impacts preference, mystery and danger in fortifications and parks in urban areas. (Under review).
Pardela, Ł., Lis, A., Zalewska, K., & Iwankowski, P. 2022b. How vegetation impacts preference, mystery and danger in fortifications and parks in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228, 104558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104558
Park, A., Clare, J., Spicer, V., Brantingham, P. L., Calvert, T., & Jenion, G. 2012. Examining context-specific perceptions of risk: Exploring the utility of “human-in-the-loop” simulation models for criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-011-9132-x
Polko, P., & Kimic, K. 2022. Gender as a factor differentiating the perceptions of safety in urban parks. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13, 101608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.09.032
Półrolniczak, M., & Kolendowicz, L. 2021. The influence of weather and level of observer expertise on suburban landscape perception. Building and Environment, 202, 108016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108016
Rahnema, S., Sedaghathoor, S., Allahyari, M. S., Damalas, C. A., & Bilali, H. E. 2019. Preferences and emotion perceptions of ornamental plant species for green space designing among urban park users in Iran. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 39, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.007
Rastkhadiv, A., Hami, A., & Pouya, S. 2024. Effects of Nature- Based Solutions on Mental Well-Being—The Case of Urban Parks in Marivan, Iran. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 50(4), 301. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2024.012
Reese, G., Kohler, E., & Menzel, C. 2021. Restore or Get Restored: The Effect of Control on Stress Reduction and Restoration in Virtual Nature Settings. Sustainability, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041995
Reese, G., Mehner, M., Nelke, I., Stahlberg, J., & Menzel, C. 2022. Into the wild … or not: Virtual nature experiences benefit well-being regardless of human-made structures in nature. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.952073
Relf, D., McDaniel, A. R., & Butterfield, B. 1992. Attitudes toward Plants and Gardening. HortTechnology Horttech, 2(2), 201– 204. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.2.2.201
Rijswijk v., L., & Haans, A. 2018. Illuminating for Safety: Investigating the Role of Lighting Appraisals on the Perception of Safety in the Urban Environment. Environment and Behavior, 50(8), 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718888
Roncken, P. 2019. Why care about virtual landscapes? Immersive open world gaming related to positive health.
Rueden, C. T., Schindelin, J., Hiner, M. C., DeZonia, B. E., Walter, A. E., Arena, E. T., & Eliceiri, K. W. 2017. ImageJ2: ImageJ for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinformatics, 18(1), 529. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1934-z
Scherer, K. R. 2005. What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405058216
Schroeder, H. W. 1987. Dimensions of variation in urban park preference: A psychophysical analysis. J. Environ. Psychol., 7(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(87)80021-X
Schroeder, H. W. 1990. Perceptions and preferences of urban forest users. Journal of arboriculture, 16, 58–61.
Schroeder, H. W., & Orland, B. 1994. Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park trees: An application of video- imaging technology. Environmental Management, 18(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393754
Sezavar, N., Pazhouhanfar, M., Van Dongen, R. P., & Grahn, P. 2023. The importance of designing the spatial distribution and density of vegetation in urban parks for increased experience of safety. Journal of Cleaner Production, 403, 136768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136768
Shayestefar, M., Pazhouhanfar, M., van Oel, C., & Grahn, P. 2022. Exploring the Influence of the Visual Attributes of Kaplan’s Preference Matrix in the Assessment of Urban Parks: A Discrete Choice Analysis. Sustainability, 14(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127357
Shr, Y.-H., Ready, R., Orland, B., & Echols, S. 2019. How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure. Ecological Economics, 156, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.015
Stamps, A. E. 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272- 4944(03)00023-9
Stamps, A. E. 2007. Entropy and Environmental Mystery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104(3), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.3.691-701
Strumse, E. 1994. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293–303.
Subiza-Pérez, M., Hauru, K., Korpela, K., Haapala, A., & Lehvävirta, S. 2019. Perceived Environmental Aesthetic Qualities Scale (PEAQS) – A self-report tool for the evaluation of green-blue spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 43, 126383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126383
Suppakittpaisarn, P., Chang, C.-Y., Deal, B., Larsen, L., & Sullivan, W. C. 2020. Does vegetation density and perceptions predict green stormwater infrastructure preference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 55, 126842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126842
Suppakittpaisarn, P., Jiang, B., Slavenas, M., & Sullivan, W. C. 2019. Does density of green infrastructure predict preference? Urban green infrastructure – connecting people and nature for sustainable cities, 40, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.007
Suthasupa, S. 2012. Kenrokuen’s Six Garden Attributes and the Understanding and Exploration Approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.068
Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., & Kolehmainen, O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions—Visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00137-7
Talal, M. L., Santelmann, M. V., & Tilt, J. H. 2021. Urban park visitor preferences for vegetation – An on-site qualitative research study. Plants People Planet, 3(4), 375–388. copus. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10188
Talal, M., & Santelmann, M. 2020. Vegetation management for urban park visitors: A mixed methods approach in Portland, Oregon. Ecological Applications, 30(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2079
The Jamovi Project. 2022. Jamovi (Version 2.3) (vesrion 2.3) [Software]. https://www.jamovi.org
Tomitaka, M., Uchihara, S., Goto, A., & Sasaki, T. 2021. Species richness and flower color diversity determine aesthetic preferences of natural-park and urban-park visitors for plant communities. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 11, 100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100130
Tveit, M., Ode, A., & Fry, G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
Ulrich, R. S. 1981. Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some PsychophysiologicalEffects.EnvironmentandBehavior,13(5), 523–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581135001
van den Berg, A. E., Jorgensen, A., & Wilson, E. R. 2014. Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference? Landscape and Urban Planning, 127, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.012
van Rijswijk, L., & Haans, A. 2018. Illuminating for safety: Investigating the role of lighting appraisals on the perception of safety in the urban environment. Environment and Behavior, 50(889–912). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718888
van Vliet, E., Dane, G., Weijs-Perrée, M., van Leeuwen, E., van Dinter, M., van den Berg, P., Borgers, A., & Chamilothori, K. 2021. The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated- Choice Experiment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010212
Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. 2011. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being – Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. The second European PhD students workshop: Water and health ? Cannes 2010, 214(6), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.05.001
White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., & Depledge, M. 2010. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004
Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
Yang, B., Li, S., Elder, B. R., & Wang, Z. 2013. Community- planning approaches and residents’ perceived safety: A landscape analysis of park design in the woodlands, Texas. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 30(4), 311– 327. JSTOR.
Yu, Z., Chen, T., Yang, G., Sun, R., Xie, W., & Vejre, H. 2020. Quantifying seasonal and diurnal contributions of urban landscapes to heat energy dynamics. Applied Energy, 264, 114724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114724
Zachariasz, A. 2024. Ogród i park: Miejsca aktywności i regeneracji. 84, 73–83.
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, D. E. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planing, 9(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Łukasz Pardela, Joanna Beck, Aleksandra Lis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
